Oral
Answers to
Questions

Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

The Secretary of State was asked—

Energy Price Guarantee: Impact on Households

Martin Docherty: What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the increase in the energy price guarantee in April 2023 on households.

Chris Law: What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the increase in the energy price guarantee in April 2023 on households.

Chris Stephens: What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the increase in the energy price guarantee in April 2023 on households.

Angela Crawley: What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the increase in the energy price guarantee in April 2023 on households.

Steven Bonnar: What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the increase in the energy price guarantee in April 2023 on households.

Grant Shapps: Future energy prices remain highly uncertain and are expected to remain elevated throughout next year. The energy price guarantee from April ’23 is currently expected to equate to £500 of support for households in 2023-24.

Martin Docherty: As I hope the Secretary of State will know, recent analysis published by The Herald has shown that the typical dual fuel bill for people in Scotland will be £3,300—£800 more than the current £2,500 price cap. Given the Chancellor’s plans to increase the price cap further, what levels does the Secretary of State expect average energy bills to reach in Scotland next year?

Grant Shapps: As the hon. Gentleman will know, a comprehensive range of different support is in place, including the energy price guarantee, which on average  looks to guarantee £2,500. It is not specific to each household, of course, and it depends on how much energy is actually used—it is a cap—but there is additional help including the £400 non-repayable support through the energy bills support scheme.

Chris Law: The support to which the Secretary of State refers offers scant consolation to those suffering, particularly the near-130,000 households in Scotland who rely on heating oil. The £200 of support from the UK Government covers less than half the price of the typical minimum order of heating oil, so will he finally commit to increasing the support available to these households?

Grant Shapps: Of course, everybody has had a £400 discount from their bill that is not repayable, and 8 million families also have additional support—those on income support and the like. The hon. Gentleman mentions the £200; we only just doubled that from £100 in the autumn statement the week before last.

Chris Stephens: Rising bills terrify most households. The End Fuel Poverty Coalition recently warned that
“predictions of ‘a humanitarian crisis’ for children stuck in cold homes are now a very real possibility”,
so does the Secretary of State accept that failure to provide additional support for vulnerable families in April will have dire consequences?

Grant Shapps: I just mentioned support for 8 million families that goes beyond just the £400 and the energy price guarantee. Those 8 million families will benefit from all manner of additional support—£1 billion for local authorities, additional money for people on various forms of universal credit, and money for pensioners—all of which is designed to help people through a crisis that the whole House should recognise has been brought on by Putin the dictator invading Ukraine.

Angela Crawley: Contrary to what the Secretary of State says, the consequences will be dire. The Institute of Health Equity indicates that the development of millions of children will be damaged, so will he commit to providing adequate support for vulnerable families so that no child suffers the diverse health impacts of fuel poverty this winter?

Grant Shapps: I have mentioned the 8 million homes, but perhaps it will help the hon. Lady if I point out the specific means-tested benefits which mean that those families will receive an extra payment of £650 on top of all the other assistance and help that I have outlined. This is an unprecedented situation. We have put billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into supporting people. I hope the whole House will recognise that this Government have done everything within our power to assist.

Steven Bonnar: The reality is that it is a damning indictment of decades of failed UK Government energy policy that we are even discussing harm to children as a result of rising energy Bills, given the vast energy resources at Scotland’s fingertips. Given that context, does the Secretary of State agree that it is absurd that nearly 1 million households in Scotland will be experiencing fuel poverty?

Grant Shapps: I have mentioned the household support fund, which is also available for the most vulnerable. I do just have to say, to this line of questioning, that it is extraordinary that while this Government are spending so much energy and money trying to support consumers, we still have the SNP refusing to allow new renewables such as nuclear power.

Desmond Swayne: When will there be clarity for park home owners about exactly what they have to do to get what they have still to receive?

Grant Shapps: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the plight of park home owners, who are in a different position from others because of the lack of connection, sometimes, to the grid. We are working very hard to ensure that they get their payments as well, which will happen this winter. My right hon. Friend can be reassured that we are doing that, and currently working through local authorities to deliver it.

Jonathan Gullis: Mr Speaker, I know you are a huge fan of making sure your pottery comes from the Potteries. Ceramic manufacturers, despite the energy price cap guarantee—it has been hugely helpful, with one manufacturer saying it will save it £4 million over the winter months—are still left in a dire situation. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me, the other Members of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent and Rob Flello, the chief executive of the British Ceramic Confederation, to discuss what further support can be given to this vital industry?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the pressure those manufacturers are under, and I absolutely recognise that. There is the energy-intensive industries discount of 85%, but I would certainly be very happy to meet him and colleagues to discuss the matter further.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Stephen Flynn: To summarise, what we know is that, in Scotland, average household energy bills will exceed the energy price guarantee, but the Secretary of State is unwilling or unable to tell us by quite how much. Of course, we know that on top of that households in Scotland, and indeed children in Scotland, are going to suffer as a result, yet we see no new announcements of additional financial support forthcoming. All the while, Scotland produces its own energy far in excess of what would be required to meet its own demands. Can I therefore ask the Secretary of State whether it is little wonder that viewers watching this at this moment in time would be thinking that Westminster is failing Scotland?

Grant Shapps: I absolutely do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have already talked about the £400 that everybody has been able to receive back, with some additional measures coming through for people with unusual connection positions. We have the £650 cost of living payments for those on benefits, £300 for pensioners and £150 for disability costs of living. From what I can work out, the SNP does not like its oil and gas industry and does not want new nuclear power, so I have no idea what its plan actually is.

Stephen Flynn: It is a remarkable state of affairs that a nation that produces more energy than it requires faces child fuel poverty as a result of the actions of this Government here. The Secretary of State does not like those facts, but here are some more for him. To alleviate this crisis in the medium to long term, what we need from this UK Government is not investment in nuclear, but investment in clean, sustainable renewable industries. In that regard, can I welcome his U-turn on onshore wind, but also seek clarity about whether he will provide the same tax incentives for the renewables sector as he will for the fossil fuel industry?

Grant Shapps: This Government have a very proud record when it comes to renewables. When we came to power, barely 10% was from renewables; now the figure is 42%. In fact, on one day the week before last over half of this country’s energy was produced from offshore wind alone. The SNP does not like the answers I am giving because the amounts of money we are spending supporting people, including Scots, with energy bills this year means that, for example, the average single parent on means-tested benefit will be £1,050 better off because of the energy bills support scheme. Yes, we are doing our part, and perhaps it is time the SNP looked at its own policy to make sure it is encouraging energy production.

Sizewell C

Tom Hunt: What assessment the Government have made of the potential impact of Sizewell C on employment in the local area.

Grant Shapps: I visited the site yesterday and was delighted to confirm the nearly £700 million investment in Sizewell C pledged in the autumn statement.

Tom Hunt: There are clearly significant national benefits to Sizewell C in terms of national security, but as a Suffolk MP I am particularly interested in potential jobs creation. I understand that about 10,000 new jobs could be created. I previously worked closely with EDF and Suffolk New College to see how we can ensure that as many local people—and my constituents in Ipswich—benefit from Sizewell C as possible. Will the Secretary of State, in his own time—when he has a little availability—meet me, the principal of Suffolk New College, other education sector leaders and EDF to see how Ipswich people can benefit in a real, tangible way from Sizewell C?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend will be interested and happy to learn that I met two apprentices at Sizewell yesterday, who have two of what we expect to be 1,500 new apprentice jobs. He is right to mention 10,000 jobs in the immediate area—perhaps there will be 20,000 across the country—and we expect more than 70% of investment in the project to come to the UK. I will gladly meet him and his colleagues to discuss that further.

Tim Farron: Cumbria’s energy coast, including nuclear, wind, wave and tidal, also has the capacity to create thousands of jobs in our county. When will the Secretary of State make an announcement in respect of his engagement with Cumbria’s energy coast to make best use—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. That is not a fair representation of the question. It is a poor effort, so I am going to let it go.

Community Energy Sector

Selaine Saxby: What steps his Department is taking to help support the growth of the community energy sector.

Graham Stuart: Ofgem supports community energy projects and welcomes applications from the sector to the industry voluntary redress scheme. We encourage community energy groups to work with their local authority to support the development of community energy projects through UK-wide growth funding schemes.

Selaine Saxby: Will my right hon. Friend support measures to enable community energy schemes to sell their clean power directly to local customers, as contained in last Session’s Local Electricity Bill, and look at including them in the Energy Bill?

Graham Stuart: Although I am sympathetic to the outcome desired by proponents of, for instance, last Session’s Local Electricity Bill, I am concerned that mandating suppliers to offer local tariffs may be disproportionate and have unintended consequences. But I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend, who I recognise is a great champion in this area, that as part of a wider review of market mechanisms we are considering retail market reforms and responses to the electricity market consultation.

Anna McMorrin: While the Government seem particularly confused about their position on onshore wind—the most tried and tested and easiest to roll out of all renewables—their focus on community energy is even worse. The creation of strong, well informed, capable communities able to take advantage of their renewable energy resources and create community benefits is embraced by the Welsh Labour Government. Why do the Conservative Government not do the same?

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Lady for her typically partisan contribution. [Interruption.] She is always consistent, and her Front-Bench colleagues rightly point out that I have some things in common with her. The rural community energy fund has provided £8.8 million in development grants for 208 projects focusing on a variety of technologies, which I am pleased to say include solar, wind, low-carbon heating and electric vehicle charging. The Government will be delighted to work with the devolved Administrations and others to drive forward our pathway to net zero.

Bim Afolami: Referring to the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), energy market reform is critical to ensure the growth of the community energy sector and to splitting out the wholesale gas price from the electricity price and other things. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s current thinking on wholesale market reform?

Graham Stuart: We will update the House as soon as we have announcements to make.

Alistair Carmichael: Community energy schemes such as Hoy Energy Ltd in Orkney perform a really important role in the community by reinvesting their profits in local schemes and projects.  Will the Minister assure me that when it comes to devising regulations under section 16 of the Energy Prices Act 2022, there will be exemptions for such companies to ensure that they can continue to put the profits that they generate back into the community?

Graham Stuart: The provisions in the Energy Prices Act have been superseded by the announcements made by the Chancellor in the autumn statement, and therefore I do not think that they strictly apply any longer, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Alan Whitehead: Does the Minister accept that the inability of local energy providers to trade within their local community remains one of the biggest obstacles to the development of community energy overall? If he is not willing to take on board the provisions of the community energy Bill that is presently being promoted by community energy supporters, does he have any other ideas as to how that problem could be overcome in the context of the Energy Bill, which I am delighted to see has resumed its parliamentary process today?

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and for his close interest in this field and knowledge of it. I look forward to sharing with the House further thoughts on how we can deliver precisely that more dynamic situation going forward. As he rightly says, there are provisions in the Energy Bill, which I am delighted to announce is resuming its passage through Parliament.

Off-grid Energy Support

Sarah Green: What steps his Department is taking to support off-grid households with their energy bills.

Lee Anderson: What steps he is taking to support off-grid consumers with their energy bills.

Andrew Bridgen: What steps he is taking to support off-grid consumers with their energy bills.

Graham Stuart: The Government have doubled support to £200 for alternatively fuelled households in recognition of the pressures caused by rising fuel costs. We are committed to delivering that payment to households as soon as possible this winter, and will announce further information on the delivery and timing of those payments in due course.

Sarah Green: People living in park homes are concerned that they have had no further information on when support will be available to them, or how they will access it. One representative of the company managing a park home site in my constituency first raised this issue with me in August, yet months on we still have no further information. Can the Minister provide some reassurance that people living in park homes will not slip through the cracks, and give some clarity as to when they will receive the £400 of support that they have been promised?

Graham Stuart: I think the hon. Lady has slightly confused the alternative fuel payment for those who are not on the gas grid with the energy bills support scheme—an easy mistake to make in this complex landscape. Those with a domestic electricity supply are already receiving the £400 discount under the EBS scheme that she has talked about. We are looking to come forward with details about timing, but it will be this winter; we are looking to work with local authorities in Great Britain to set up a scheme whereby people in park homes can apply as households, to ensure that they receive that £400 through local authorities as quickly as we can manage.

Lee Anderson: Now then. The residents of Ashfield mobile home park do not have a regular energy supplier. They get their gas and electricity sold on by the park owner—who, by the way, marks it up and puts a little bit back in his own pocket. Those residents do not have a great deal of money, so can the Minister please reassure them that help is on the way as soon as possible?

Graham Stuart: I thank my hon. Friend for his question; I hope he found my letter yesterday, and the annex to it, helpful. As I said, the Government have doubled support to £200 for alternatively fuelled households in recognition of the pressures caused by rising fuel costs. We are also determined to get support in place for edge cases. It sounds simple, and if I were where my hon. Friend is, I would certainly be shouting at the Minister to get on with it, but we do not live in a central database-driven society; it is necessary to identify these people in a way that protects public money. We are working flat out to deliver this support as quickly as we can.

Andrew Bridgen: A number of my constituents live in park homes, and many more have no access to gas mains and so rely on bulk deliveries of kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas. They are all concerned about the rising cost of energy, so would the Minister outline to the House how he is going to communicate to those groups the support that is available, and ensure that it is delivered for them this winter?

Graham Stuart: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I said, we are very much looking to work with local authorities, which we think are in the best position to help to go through the verification and assessment process and look after public money, and most importantly, to get the funding to heating oil users and others who need support to meet these unprecedented bills this winter.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.

Darren Jones: The Government announced this week that £1 billion will go towards energy efficiency to reduce energy bills. Will the Minister confirm how many new homes will be covered by that £1 billion?

Graham Stuart: I cannot give the Chair of the Committee an exact figure, but I hope that very large numbers will be covered by that—[Interruption.] Opposition Front Benchers may find that amusing, but we should remember how few homes had an energy performance certificate C when Labour left power and how many more have had their level raised since then.

Manufacturing: Support for Innovation

Henry Smith: What steps he is taking to support innovation in the manufacturing sector.

George Freeman: Despite the Opposition’s constant attempts to talk down UK manufacturing, the truth is that we are ninth in the world and fourth in Europe, and that our advanced manufacturing sector contributes £205 billion gross value added to the UK economy. That is why we continue to support it in sectors such as aerospace, automotive and life sciences through £850 million to the high-value manufacturing catapult and nearly £200 million through our Made Smarter programme.

Henry Smith: Recently, Rolls-Royce, in conjunction with Gatwick-based easyJet, carried out a successful green hydrogen jet engine trial. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government will continue to invest in sustainable aviation innovation?

George Freeman: I thank my hon. Friend, the chair of the all-party group for the future of aviation, and I take this opportunity to invite the whole House to celebrate the world-first achieved by Rolls-Royce and easyJet: the first run of a green hydrogen-powered auto engine. I am happy to reconfirm our commitment to aerospace technology. That is why we have put £685 million into the Aerospace Technology Institute programme and £125 million through the industrial strategy challenge fund into the UK Research and Innovation future flight challenge. The UK is leading in clean energy for the aviation sector and jet zero.

Ian Lavery: The Government set a goal of the development of eight gigafactories before 2040. Will the Minister say how that is progressing, and will he reassure my constituents that the Government are in conversation with Britishvolt to secure its gigafactory site at Cambois in my constituency?

George Freeman: The hon. Member is absolutely right that we are committed to growing that supply chain for the gigafactory revolution in the north-east, the midlands and all around the country. That is why we set out, in our critical minerals strategy, a coherent plan for making sure that the country has the whole supply chain, as well as those factories. I know that the Minister with responsibility for energy technology will be happy to talk to the hon. Member to make sure that the supply chain is working locally as well.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Bill Esterson: On 16 November, the Government awarded the contract for the new fleet solid support ships to a Spanish state-led consortium. Around £700 million of that contract will go to overseas industry when our steel and shipbuilding sectors are crying out for support. Also on 16 November, the Minister for Industry and Investment Security wrote to me to say that the future of UK steel companies was a commercial decision. Will this Minister explain why the UK Government did not take the commercial decision to deliver £700 million of work to UK steelmakers and shipyards?

George Freeman: The hon. Member raises an important point. We are committed to using our Brexit freedoms both on procurement and regulation to support UK industries. I will raise that issue with the Minister for Industry and Investment Security, who sadly cannot be here this morning, and make sure that she picks that up with the hon. Member directly. However, the answer is that we are totally committed to the UK steel sector and to getting the balance right between ensuring that we have open procurement and that we use Government procurement muscle to back our industries. They are not easy decisions to make, but we are very sighted on them to try to get that balance right.

Small Business Support

Catherine West: What steps his Department is taking to support small business growth.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is a delight to be part of a ministerial team of whom many members actually have a business background. We are for business because we are from business, and we know what it is like to lie awake at night worrying about how to pay the bills.
The reversal of the national insurance rise will save small businesses an average of approximately £4,200 a year, alongside the cut to fuel duty for 12 months and the energy bill relief scheme. The British Business Bank supports small and medium-sized enterprises to access growth finance.

Catherine West: From Muswell Hill to Myddleton Road, from Turnpike Lane to Hornsey High Street, we are celebrating Small Business Saturday in my constituency this weekend. There are two major concerns on the mind of small businesses. The first is the business rates expense. When will the Minister consider reforming it to help small business? The second is a wider question for business and trade unions about retained EU legislation, which is providing a lot of uncertainty in the business community and a drag on growth. When will the Government come out with a decision on that crucial issue?

Kevin Hollinrake: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question, especially the part about Small Business Saturday. As hon. Members can imagine, I will be spending much of the day visiting small businesses across my constituency. I will also shortly be attending a House of Lords reception to celebrate the 100 small businesses recognised in the programme.
As the hon. Lady knows, in the autumn statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced £13.6 billion of support for businesses over the next five years, reducing the burden of business rates for SMEs. Of course we all want to see reform, but simply announcing the scrapping of business rates without announcing any replacement cannot be the right thing, because it does not give business the certainty that it needs. That is the sensible reform that I think the hon. Lady should be grateful for.

Gagan Mohindra: May I put it on the record that as well as being the week of Small Business Saturday, this is Family Business  Week? I had the opportunity to visit Tony at Croxley Hardware a few weeks ago. Does the Minister agree that small businesses are the lifeblood not only of the economy, but of our communities?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank my hon. Friend for his recognition of the small businesses in his constituency. He is absolutely right: there is no greater force behind the supply side of the economy than small businesses, which are essential to prosperity and productivity. He is absolutely right to champion their cause, and we should all join him in that endeavour.

Meg Hillier: There has been some talk about business rates. I appreciate what the Minister says about needing a proper plan. Businesses in my constituency tell me that business rates are their big bête noire and that reforming and replacing them would make their lives a lot easier and their survival more certain. Will he give some indication of the Government’s thinking, and of the timescale in which they might be looking at the matter? Labour is proposing a radical reform.

Kevin Hollinrake: Well, Labour is proposing a radical reform, but we cannot quite work out whether it will scrap business rates or reform them. There have been mixed messages among Labour Front Benchers—indeed, among the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition—so we are not quite sure what Labour’s policy will be. We are certainly not sure how it would replace the £25 billion to £30 billion of revenue. I would really like to understand that.
This is a thorny issue, because if we scrapped business rates the taxpayer would have to find that huge amount of money by some other means. The right thing to do right now is to see businesses through this very difficult time with the kind of concession that we have made, such as the £13.6 billion, rather than making irresponsible and in my view undeliverable promises to completely scrap business rates.

James Duddridge: Essex Linen Services, which provides laundry services to hospitals and hotels, is struggling to survive because of electricity prices. It believes that its sector has been left out of the energy support packages. Will the Minister agree to review the situation for providers of laundry services and see whether they can be supported in paying their electricity bills in future?

Kevin Hollinrake: All businesses have access to the energy bill relief scheme. There are concerns about which sectors will be covered by the revised scheme. We will have details on that by the end of the year; the Government have committed to that. Clearly we are trying to balance the interests of the taxpayer, who has to fund this, with those of business. It is right that we focus on businesses that cannot mitigate their energy use, by whatever means, or pass on the costs to consumers. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the interests of the sector.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister, Seema Malhotra.

Seema Malhotra: I grew up in a small family business. Labour is proud to be supporting Small Business Saturday and its 10th anniversary, and to have supported last week’s family business week.
Small and medium-sized enterprises are indeed the lifeblood of our economy, but they have been hit hard by 12 years of Tory failure and staggeringly low growth. Even after three Prime Ministers this year, the Government have no answers—and the House should not just take that from me; the Federation of Small Businesses judged the autumn statement as being
“low on wealth-creation, piling more pressure on the UK’s 5.5 million small businesses”.
If the Government are really serious about helping small businesses to grow, is it not time they adopted Labour’s plan to reform business rates, back our high streets, make Brexit work, and make Britain the best place in which to start and grow a business?

Kevin Hollinrake: As one who was in business in 2010, I remember very well what the economy was like in that year, when we took over from Labour: it was not having a good time. [Interruption.] Yes, it is a lot stronger now.
We should bear in mind that while we can choose our own opinions, we cannot choose our own facts, and the facts are that the UK has experienced the third fastest growth in the G7 since 2010—behind only the United States and Canada—and has grown faster than Germany since 2016. It is right that we seek to provide new solutions for businesses; we have to stimulate the supply side of the economy, not least because that is good not only for businesses but for consumers. However, as I said earlier, simply claiming that you are going to scrap business rates without saying how you are going to replace that £25 billion of revenue is highly irresponsible.

SMEs: Recruitment Support

Douglas Chapman: What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help support (a) small and medium-sized enterprises and (b) other businesses to recruit adequate numbers of staff.

Lindsay Hoyle: Come on!

Kevin Hollinrake: I am new to this, Mr Speaker.
My Department works closely with other Government Departments and with firms in all sectors of the economy on a range of issues relating to the labour market and skills. That includes increasing the number of apprentices and business investment in skills development, the adoption of T-levels and skills bootcamps, and ensuring that there is better information along with easier routes into careers in a range of sectors.

Douglas Chapman: Last month I held a business roundtable with the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. It was clear that SMEs were struggling with recruitment, high energy costs, Brexit, and £20 billion worth of late payments.
When it comes to late payments, the prompt payment code does not cut it for SMEs. Will the Minister work with me to introduce legislation to outlaw late payments once and for all and give our SMEs a fighting chance?

Kevin Hollinrake: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s correspondence on this matter, and I look forward to meeting him on 7 December.
The prompt payment code, which we introduced and which we reviewed recently, will be out for consultation very shortly, and I am keen to learn from best practice how we can make it more effective. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are many issues facing businesses today, and we are keen to help them get through the difficulties that will no doubt continue over the next few months, but in my experience of business our best years come after our worst years, and I think we can be confident when looking ahead while also recognising that there will be difficult times in the short term.

Mark Pawsey: There are many SMEs in the retail and hospital sector. It is a sector that does well in the run-up to Christmas, which gives those businesses the opportunity to make some money. What impact does the Minister think the rail strikes that are planned for next week will have on their ability to recruit more staff?

Kevin Hollinrake: It is, of course, right that we look after the interests of business and consumers. There is no doubt that the strikes will have an impact on both parts of that sector, and it is also right for us to prioritise the needs of all consumers, not just those who are seeking to take industrial action. We urge all parties to get round the negotiating table as quickly as possible and try to reach a sensible agreement.

Energy Support

James Grundy: What steps he is taking to support (a) households and (b) businesses with energy bills in winter 2022-23.

George Freeman: As my colleagues have already pointed out, the Government are supporting households and businesses during the winter through a series of measures including the energy price guarantee, which will save the average household £900 this winter, the £400 energy bill support scheme payment, and, for businesses, the energy bill relief scheme, which will provide a price reduction to ensure that all eligible businesses and other non-domestic customers are protected. That is in addition to the £2 billion that the energy-intensive industries have received since 2013.

James Grundy: Over the last six months, several businesses in my constituency have approached me to raise concerns about potential tenfold increases in their energy bills. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the Government will continue to act to ensure that no business will face such shocking increases in reality, either this year or next year?

George Freeman: In a word, yes. All of us in the Business Department are focused on the point that my hon. Friend raises—namely, the pressure on businesses from the energy price spike this winter. In the autumn statement the Chancellor announced the Treasury-led review of our energy bill relief scheme beyond March, and we are actively working as a Department to make sure that that review has all the necessary data and  evidence from businesses. Our energy bill relief scheme supporting energy-intensive industries has put in £2 billion of relief since 2013, and our 2022 energy security strategy announced that the EII compensation scheme would be extended for a further three years. We are also looking at making similar changes to the related EII exemption scheme. The Business Department absolutely gets how much difficulty businesses are facing through energy.

Andy McDonald: The north-east of England process industry cluster has advised me that major companies on Teesside currently obtaining their energy via a private wire relationship do not qualify for the energy bill relief scheme, with some major employers paying millions more for their energy and facing the real prospect of ceasing operations and moving overseas. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how their concerns can be addressed?

George Freeman: Even better than that, I can make sure that the energy Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), meets the hon. Gentleman. We are aware of this problem and we are actively working on it.

BEIS Capital Spending

John Stevenson: What recent assessment he has made of the efficiency and effectiveness of his Department’s capital spending.

George Freeman: As the Department for science, research and innovation, with the historic uplift in public R&D announced in the comprehensive spending review 2021 and the autumn statement 2022, and the Department for net zero, BEIS secured the highest increase in capital budgets at the last spending review, growing at 8.3% per annum over the spending review period.

John Stevenson: As we know, capital expenditure spent effectively drives economic growth. To this end, would the Minister agree that capital projects such as those in my constituency that will clearly help economic growth and can start in the next 12 months will be prioritised, and that additional support will be given where they have shortfalls due to rising costs?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend has put his powerful point on record. I can assure him that the Department is actively working with the Treasury to make sure that those sorts of schemes are accelerated.

Alan Brown: Is it still in the Department’s plans to take a 20% shareholding in Sizewell C? If so, will that result in a capital spend of £6 billion or £7 billion—money that could be better spent elsewhere? Private investment could be freed up in the Scottish cluster if it was made a track 1 cluster and pumped storage hydro could be helped by agreeing a pricing mechanism for electricity.

George Freeman: Unlike the Scottish nationalists, we are committed to the private-public partnership that drives investment in our nuclear industry, and Sizewell C is a major commitment. The Government are proud to  be partnering with industry, and it is a shame that the Scottish nationalists are not similarly partnering with industry for the benefit of Scots voters and bill payers.

Energy Price Guarantee

John Penrose: If he will publish a White Paper on the long-term structure of the UK energy sector after the energy price guarantee ends.

Graham Stuart: The Government have announced changes to the energy price guarantee from April 2023, as well as additional support for pensioners and those on benefits. The Government will work with consumer groups and industry to consider the best approach to consumer protection from April 2024 as part of wider retail market reforms.

John Penrose: Does the Minister agree that while subsidies are necessary short-term sticking plasters, investors will not commit the multi-billion pound investments that the energy sector needs to upgrade and modernise energy storage, generation and transmission unless the long-term rules are clear? Will he therefore update the Energy Bill to lay out a sustainable long-term future with investable deadlines and milestones to transition from today’s highly distorted, politicised and bureaucratic sector to a cheaper, simpler, better-value industry with much lower political and regulatory risks?

Graham Stuart: I am proud that this Government have led the way, with contracts for difference driving renewables such as offshore wind by driving down costs. I am also delighted that we have the legislative vehicle to deliver the necessary changes, and the Energy Security Bill will be taken forward in this Parliament to transform our energy industry by turbocharging carbon capture, utilisation and storage and our hydrogen industries in pioneering projects from the Humber to the Mersey, and beyond. The Bill will encourage competition in the energy sector, creating opportunity, prosperity and security with clean jobs, new skills and, as my hon. Friend rightly highlights, cheaper bills.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister talks about long-term energy support. Will he bear in mind that, despite the promises made here today that everyone in the United Kingdom is already benefiting from short-term support, not one penny has been allocated to consumers in Northern Ireland, even though the electricity companies are ready and the utility regular has told him that the ground has been set. When will payments be made to people in Northern Ireland? We are looking not for promises tomorrow but for payments today.

Graham Stuart: The energy price guarantee is benefiting Northern Ireland consumers today, along with pensioners and vulnerable families—they are all being helped. Of course, energy policy is devolved to Northern Ireland, and we have had to step in because of the lack of an Executive. We are working very hard. I held a roundtable with energy suppliers only last week, and another one was held yesterday. We are doing everything within our power to find the right route, while protecting public money in the proper fashion, to get money out to  Northern Ireland consumers this winter. We are doing everything for our part, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will support me in urging others to do the same.

Topical Questions

Andrew Bridgen: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Grant Shapps: With Sizewell C, we are securing a cheap, clean and reliable supply of energy to supercharge growth—I will provide more details in my oral statement. We have recommitted to increasing public investment in research and development to £20 billion each year by 2024-25, which will supercharge science and innovation, and we are supporting local enterprises and increasing the national living wage by almost 10%, the largest ever cash-terms increase.

Andrew Bridgen: As well as renewables, it is clear that we need to add more baseload capacity, and nuclear is the favourite for that. Hundreds of my constituents work at Rolls-Royce, and many of them work on the development of small modular nuclear reactors. Will my right hon. Friend outline what support the Government are giving to Rolls-Royce to develop this technology, which will not only add to the UK’s energy security but deliver a technology that we will be able to export successfully around the globe?

Grant Shapps: Like my hon. Friend, I am very keen on small nuclear reactors as part of the solution. We will be launching Great British Nuclear early next year to assist both Rolls-Royce and its competitors. There are other brands out there, all of which have interesting ideas about modular production of nuclear power, which will provide sustainable energy even when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Jonathan Reynolds: I welcome the Business Secretary to his first oral questions. He is the third Business Secretary we have had this year, and I have to say that lack of stability is the No. 1 complaint from businesses, which genuinely cannot keep track of Government policy in any particular area. If they do know the policy, they feel it could change at any moment if the internal politics of the Conservative party shift one way or the other. Does he accept that political instability has very real consequences for economic stability?

Grant Shapps: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s welcome, I hope to be in post for a long time, not to disappoint him in any way. His talk about the instability of policy is a bit rich, as many Labour Members sat on the Front Bench under their previous leader, who believed in a whole bunch of different things. Even the shadow Secretary of State for Climate Change and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), once said it is impossible for this country to get to 40% renewable energy—he called it “pie in the sky.” Right now we are producing 43.1% of our energy from renewables. That is from a party that is consistent.

Jonathan Reynolds: Respectfully, I think the Business Secretary needs to focus a little bit more on his own side and the humility required to do that.
On a more positive note, this Saturday is small business Saturday. A future Labour Government will tackle the issue of late payments to small and medium-sized enterprises by making audit committees report on public companies’ payment practices. With more than £20 million waiting to be paid at any one time, this is a change that will make a real difference and one that is backed by the Federation of Small Businesses. We could, however, implement it sooner by amending the draft audit reform Bill when it comes forward. Would the Secretary of State support that change?

Grant Shapps: I agree that payment for small businesses is very important, particularly when it is not done by larger companies that have the resources. That is one of the reasons why the Government have led the way to make sure that, when small businesses deal with Government, payments are made quickly and efficiently. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is looking at a whole range of different things to ensure that we speed up the culture of late payments to small businesses, and he will be saying more about that very shortly.

Elliot Colburn: Transport for London consultation data shows that 80% of outer London businesses said no to the Mayor of London expanding the ultra low emission zone, but they have been ignored and now many Carshalton and Wallington businesses are considering closing their doors. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and other London Conservative MPs to discuss how we might be able to support businesses in outer London?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour Members talk about helping businesses, but that is what you get with a Labour Mayor in London, bashing businesses. I would be proud to meet my hon. Friend.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Chi Onwurah: We do not know where the half a billion pounds announced last week to cover Horizon uncertainty is coming from, as the Science Minister refuses to answer my questions, but we do know that British scientists are still having to choose between the country they love and the funding they need. British science, British businesses and British jobs are at risk while the Government play a blame game, instead of keeping their manifesto promise to associate with the world’s biggest science fund. Will the Science Minister admit that no science fund can have the efficiency, effectiveness, influence, prestige or range of Horizon, and that he has let British science down?

George Freeman: In a word, no. I will tell the hon. Lady exactly where the £484 million that we announced last Monday—I think the Opposition supported it—is coming from. It is coming from Her Majesty’s Treasury to support universities, researchers and companies in this country that have been affected  by—and this is the second point—the European Union’s block on our negotiated membership of Horizon, Copernicus and Euratom. I was in Paris last week negotiating. We are still actively pushing to be in Horizon, Copernicus and Euratom, but we have made provision, and early in the new year Members will start to see that we will be rolling out additional support for fellowships, innovation and global partnerships. If UK scientists cannot play in the European cup, we will play in the world cup of science.

Gareth Johnson: Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning the actions of the London Mayor in extending the ULEZ scheme out to the whole of London? This will have a significant impact on businesses both inside and outside London, creating a financial wall between London and the rest of the country, and hitting areas such as Dartford particularly hard, which, of course, have no say in who the Mayor of London is.

Grant Shapps: That is absolutely right. Voters will have their say. I say no taxation without representation.

Margaret Ferrier: I welcome the Business Secretary to his place. What assessment has he made of the number of European countries to exit the energy charter treaty on the basis that attempts to modernise the treaty have failed, and will the Government be considering the UK’s position?

Graham Stuart: We consider all those that have left the energy charter treaty, but we have so far supported its modernisation. We keep that under advisement.

Greg Smith: Does my right hon. Friend share my enthusiasm for synthetic fuels made from green hydrogen and atmospheric carbon capture as part of our route to decarbonisation? If so, what is his Department doing to support the UK pioneers in this sector, such as Zero Petroleum, to compete in what will surely be a multitrillion-pound global industry and huge export opportunity?

Grant Shapps: I do enthusiastically support our SAF—sustainable aviation fuel—industry. Actually, it is a little known fact that last year at COP26 we sent more than 500 aircraft home with sustainable aviation fuel in their tanks, and this country has set a more ambitious target for sustainable aviation fuel than elsewhere, with 10% by 2030.

Stephen Timms: The Groceries Code Adjudicator has done a good job over the past 10 years, leading to a big fall in the number of breaches of the fair purchasing code, but bad practice is still rife in the fashion industry, with UK fashion retailers among the worst offenders. The Environmental Audit Committee called for a garment trade adjudicator. Will Ministers bring that proposal forward?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the right hon. Member for all his work in this area; I know that he has done an awful lot. We have no plans to bring forward a garment code adjudicator, but   we do take reports of illegal and unsafe employment practices very seriously. Since October 2020, a wide group of stakeholders, comprising retailers, manufacturers and non-profit organisations have been working with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority to address poor practice and working conditions.

Virginia Crosbie: May I say pob lwc, good luck, to the Wales football team tonight?
Can the Secretary of State confirm that, beyond Sizewell C, Great British Nuclear will be empowered to commission and build at not only gigawatt-scale, but small modular reactor-scale, so that my constituents on Ynys Môn can benefit from those new jobs from new nuclear?

Grant Shapps: I can confirm that that is the intention with Great British Nuclear. I know that areas such as Wylfa Newydd—if I am pronouncing it correctly—in my hon. Friend’s constituency could well be in line to benefit. However, as she can tell from my Welsh pronunciation, I suspect that I will be on the English side tonight.

Virendra Sharma: Yesterday, I hosted a roundtable meeting for businesses in my constituency. They were worried about late payments and a Government who are not helping them. Fifty thousand businesses close every year due to late payments, and small businesses account for two thirds of UK private sector employment. Will this Government act before the worst of the Tory-led recession bites to save millions of jobs?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the hon. Member for his question. He is absolutely right to bring up this matter. It is one of the concerns that has been raised most frequently with me since taking on this role. We are tackling the culture of late payments with measures including the Payment Practices Reporting, the Small Business Commissioner and the Prompt Payment Code, but I am determined to see how much further we can go to be effective in this area.

David Simmonds: I recently met my constituent, Puneet Bhalla, who is the founder and chief executive of Maxim World, a very successful small exporter of hotel goods across the world. He told me of some of the challenges that small and medium-sized exporters are facing with post-Brexit trade arrangements. Can my hon. Friend tell me what plans there are to involve SMEs in the review of EU retained law?

Kevin Hollinrake: It is great to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituent is looking to export right across the world, and we are determined to make it easier to do so through trade deals outside the European Union. Ministers and officials from across BEIS regularly engage with SMEs on a wide range of issues and will continue to do so as the retained EU law programme proceeds.

John Cryer: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), when will Ministers start to use procurement in order to generate and defend  British jobs? I have been listening for years to Ministers coming to that Dispatch Box saying that they will use procurement, so when will we actually see it?

Kevin Hollinrake: That is a very important point. The Government are determined to tackle not just their own procurement practices, but those further afield. Clearly, we want to keep our markets open to international competition, because we want to compete internationally as well, but there also needs to be fair competition. Where we can prioritise the needs of British companies and British workers, we should do so.

Gary Sambrook: Northfield Business Improvement District and I are eagerly awaiting the announcement of the levelling-up bid, especially the one for Northfield High Street. In the meantime, many local shops, especially independents, are in need of help to stay open. Can the Minister help Marcia and Andy from the Northfield BID and set out how the Government can help those businesses?

Kevin Hollinrake: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for standing up for his constituency businesses; I hope he is supporting Small Business Saturday this weekend, as I am sure hon. Members across the House will be. It is absolutely right that we are supporting businesses through these difficult times with the energy bill relief scheme and the £13.6 billion of rates support that they will see over the next five years, but we will continue to look at the needs of business to ensure that we have the right measures in place.

Caroline Lucas: The Rosebank oilfield would produce more than 200 million tonnes of CO2 when burned, which is equivalent to running 58 coal-fired power stations for a year and more than the combined annual emissions of 28 low-income countries. How does that make any sense in a world where heating needs to be constrained to below 1.5°?

Graham Stuart: Our use of oil and gas in this country is falling as part of our pathway to net zero. It is usage that drives the burning of oil and gas, and it is on the downward pathway. Producing our own oil and gas when we will be burning it on our net zero pathway domestically is sensible. It is good for Scottish jobs—although sadly opposed by the Scottish nationalists—it is good for the British economy and it is entirely net zero compliant. That is why we will continue to manage the mature and declining basin that is the North sea.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Henry Smith.

Henry Smith: Sorry—I did not know I had a topical question, Mr Speaker. Can I get assurances from the Government that airports such as Gatwick will be supported as they recover strongly from the covid-19 pandemic?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that I did know that he would have a topical question, and the answer to it is yes.

Feryal Clark: Recently, a Premier Inn hotel in my constituency threw out one of their visually impaired guests, Ms Angharad Paget-Jones, and her guide dog Tudor in the middle of the night  because they refused to believe, despite being shown identification, that Tudor was a guide dog. Can the Minister tell me what action his Department is taking not only to ensure that businesses are complying with the Equality Act 2010, but to go after those who show frank disregard for it in practice?

Kevin Hollinrake: That is a very disturbing case, and I am happy to help the hon. Lady with it. I know that the guide dog campaigning organisations have this issue in their sights as something we need to address. I would be grateful if she wrote to me with the specific instance and I will be happy to deal with it for her.

David Duguid: I welcome the Government’s recent doubling of the alternative fuel payment and yesterday’s written communication from the Minister confirming that the majority of households eligible for those payments will receive their £200 automatically as a credit on their electricity bill. Can he reassure constituents in Banff and Buchan who are dependent on heating oil in particular that those payments will indeed be made as soon as practically possible?

Graham Stuart: I can give my hon. Friend and his constituents that assurance.

Alex Cunningham: A few months ago, CF Fertilisers in Billingham ceased ammonia production there because of the high gas price. Now Mitsubishi, just a few hundred yards along the road, is consulting on the closure of one of its plants, with the loss of hundreds of direct and contractor jobs, for the same reason. Is the Minister aware of that latest blow to Teesside, and what is he doing to help firms such as Mitsubishi?

Grant Shapps: I was up in Teesside the week before last, and I have been keeping in close contact with what is happening there. The good news is that there are new jobs coming about in new industries, including new industries supplying electric battery manufacturing, which are available because this country is outside the European Union and able to produce new rules that will allow things such as green lithium to thrive here and provide up to 8% of Europe’s entire needs. New jobs are coming to Teesside.

Stephen Metcalfe: As my right hon. Friend will know, maths and higher maths is often the foundation skill upon which other innovative technologies are built. Can he therefore tell the House what steps his Department is taking both to fund higher maths and to give people the skills they need in maths to help us to reinforce our status as a global science power?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend makes an important point: maths is one of the underpinning disciplines of all our science and technology leadership. That is why we have increased funding through UK Research and Innovation for core maths, and I am delighted to confirm that we are looking at various ways in which we might be able to turbocharge our international fellowships in maths as well.

Stephen Farry: Households in Great Britain have had access to the £400 energy support payments since 1 October, but households in Northern Ireland have not had any substantial support whatsoever. The energy price guarantee does not really work in Northern Ireland, because 70% of households there use oil. Can the Government give the people of Northern Ireland a firm date by which the £400 payments will be made available?

Graham Stuart: As I said in an earlier answer, we are doing everything we can, working through suppliers, to ensure that the money reaches Northern Ireland consumers. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that every single Northern Ireland household is receiving the alternative fuel payment, in addition to the energy bills support scheme. We are looking to make sure not only that that money gets out and is credited to households, but that they are able to access it this winter. There is no point having it as a credit on an electricity bill, as that does not help them deal with other costs this winter. That is the sticking point; that is what we are working on.

Lindsay Hoyle: Come on, Minister—you said you had already answered it once.

Matt Warman: The proposed takeover of Activision by Microsoft has the potential to have a profound impact on many of Britain’s brilliant video games industry manufacturers and makers. Although I know that the Secretary of State will not want to comment on the specifics of that case, can he reassure me that the Competition and Markets Authority has all the resources it needs to come to the right conclusion and to do so as thoroughly and rapidly as possible on this important matter?

Kevin Hollinrake: My hon. Friend is right to raise that question. I know that the CMA has received a large number of submissions, and some very large submissions as well. I think it has until 1 March next year to complete its phase 2 inquiry. We absolutely believe that it has the right resources to do that, and we will make sure that it has over the coming months.

Anti-lockdown Protest in Shanghai: Arrest and Assault of Edward Lawrence

Lindsay Hoyle: We come now to the urgent question. I believe this is the first time Jim Shannon has had one.

Jim Shannon: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the arrest and assault of Edward Lawrence by Chinese authorities while covering an anti-lockdown protest in Shanghai.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity. It has been 12 years of waiting—patience is a virtue.

David Rutley: I find it hard to believe, given his powers of persuasion, that this is the hon. Gentleman’s first urgent question. He is an ever present ray of sunshine in Parliament, and we love him for it.
As the Foreign Secretary made clear yesterday, the arrest of a BBC journalist while covering the recent protests in Shanghai is a deeply disturbing and wholly unacceptable situation. Journalists must be able to do their job without fear of arrest of intimidation. The BBC has stated that the journalist was beaten and kicked by the police during his arrest, and was held for several hours before being released. In response, we are calling in the Chinese ambassador to make clear the unacceptable and unwarranted nature of those actions and the importance of freedom of speech, and to demand a full explanation. We have also been in close touch with the journalist and the BBC throughout to gather the facts and provide consular support.
We recognise that the covid-related restrictions in China are challenging for the Chinese people. We urge the Chinese authorities to respect the rights of those who decide to express their views about the situation. Moreover, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday in his Mansion House speech, the media—and, for that matter, our parliamentarians—must be able to highlight issues without fear of sanction or intimidation, whether in calling out human rights violations in Xinjiang and the curtailment of freedom in Hong Kong, or in reporting on the recent protests.
This, of course, follows the recent incident in Manchester. As we have previously made clear to the House, the apparent behaviour of staff at the Chinese consulate general was wholly unacceptable. In view of the gravity of that incident, we summoned the Chinese chargé d’affaires on 18 October and delivered a clear message through our ambassador in Beijing. There is now an ongoing investigation and it would be wrong to pre-empt the findings.
More broadly, we recognise that China poses a systemic challenge to our values and interests, which, again, the Prime Minister highlighted yesterday. That challenge grows more acute as China moves towards greater authoritarianism. That is why we are taking robust action to protect our interests and stand up for our values. That includes imposing sanctions, leading action at the UN and strengthening our supply chain resilience. Let me assure Members that, as  part of our frank relationship with China, we will continue to raise our human rights concerns at the highest levels.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for having a certain firmness in his response, which is what we wish to hear. I welcome the news that the Chinese ambassador has been summoned by the FCDO to account for this arrest. I encourage the Minister to share—hopefully he can—all the justifications that will be given at that meeting. The reason given to the BBC by the Chinese authorities was that they had arrested Edward Lawrence for his own good in case he caught covid from the crowd. Wow, what a pathetic answer! My goodness. Such was their concern for him, a senior journalist in the BBC and a British citizen, that the Chinese police beat him and kicked him as he tried to lawfully cover a peaceful protest in Shanghai. He had all the necessary permits and licences, and is a veteran reporter in China.
The first question we need to ask is: what assessment has the FCDO Minister made of the safety of British journalists in China following this assault? It is important to remember that the arrest and assault of Edward Lawrence is not the first attack on freedom of speech, but just another example in a long line of journalists and human rights defenders who have been silenced, arrested or simply disappeared by the Chinese Communist party. This is the sixth urgent question granted in this parliamentary term on human rights abuses by the Chinese Communist party. We have seen the CCP establishing incognito police stations in the UK, the assault of Bob Chan outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester, the Xinjiang police files highlighting horrendous crimes against the Uyghurs, and the arrest of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong. This is unprecedented and needs urgent action.
This incident is part of a clear pattern of behaviour of increased crackdowns and restrictions on Chinese people within China and on British soil in the run-up to, and following, the 20th national congress of the Chinese Communist party last month. Last night at the Lord Mayor’s banquet, the Prime Minister gave a speech stating that the “golden era” of China-UK relations was over. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment, which is worthy of saying. The director general of MI5 said that China represents
“the biggest long-term threat to Britain and the world’s economic and national security”.
Clearly, tougher action is needed to protect British citizens, human rights defenders, pro-democracy activists, and religious and ethnic minorities targeted by the CCP.

David Rutley: As always, my friend the hon. Gentleman raises important points, and he can be assured that when the Chinese ambassador is called in to the FCDO, they will be raised, particularly the immediate point about the arrest, its unacceptable manner and the justification, which as he highlighted is incredibly thin. In that meeting, we will also raise the wider point he has mentioned about the safety of journalists. He raises a number of other important points, including about Chinese police stations. As the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), made clear in his statement to the House on 1 November, reports of undeclared police stations in the United Kingdom are extremely concerning  and will be taken seriously. The Home Office is reviewing our approach to transnational repression, and the Minister for Security has committed to providing an update on that work to the House in due course. The hon. Gentleman rightly says that there are wider concerns about the increasing authoritarianism and muscular foreign policy of the Chinese, and the Prime Minister rightly set out a new era of robust pragmatism, which we have seen grow over recent years, but which was clearly articulated by the Prime Minister yesterday.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I congratulate our friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on successfully securing this urgent question? He raises a series of very important points. We all absolutely and rightly condemn the brutal treatment yesterday of Ed Lawrence, the BBC cameraman, that saw him dragged away and beaten. I have seen a text from him to a colleague saying that he was beaten hard during the course of his detention.
With all the other issues that have been raised—the chasing and incarceration of journalists in Hong Kong, the crackdowns and genocide on the Uyghur—there is now an endless litany of China’s bad behaviour, so I simply ask my hon. Friend the Minister this. How is it that yesterday the Prime Minister, who previously said that China posed a “systemic threat”, has now moved to saying it poses “a systemic challenge”, and that our strongest policy statement now, in terms of our reputation and relationship with China, is that we are going to be “robustly pragmatic”? Can he please explain to me how “robustly pragmatic” will worry the Chinese any one bit?

David Rutley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He is a long-standing campaigner on these issues, and I listen keenly to what he says, as does the Foreign Secretary. What the Prime Minister set out yesterday was a co-ordinated and coherent approach in which we do more to adapt to China’s growing impact. As he knows, we will revise and update the integrated review, which will help us to invest in our alliances and in the serious capabilities that we need to counter the actions that we see in China’s foreign policy.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the shadow Minister.

Catherine West: I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing his first urgent question in the House—who would have known that it was the first?
I turn to the serious matter of the arrest and detention of journalists, which is deeply shocking and, in this particular case, concerns our own BBC. Sadly, this is the approach and tone that we have come to expect from an increasingly authoritarian Chinese regime. That has been further demonstrated this week by the case in Hong Kong of the independent media outlet, Apple Daily, whose founder, Jimmy Lai, faces court cases in Hong King on basic freedom of expression for local people. We must show solidarity in that terrible situation, not just in Hong Kong but across the People’s Republic of China.
I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary has summoned the Chinese ambassador, as well as the consular support that has been provided for Mr Lawrence.  The robust response is a welcome change to the Government’s previous handling of Chinese overreach in Manchester, which the House thought did not match the severity of the violence outside the Chinese consulate. Our support for the work of the press must be unified, and we stand squarely behind the Government in making it clear to Chinese officials that their treatment of journalists doing their job is not and never will be acceptable. The Opposition have made it clear that the BBC must be protected in its crucial work abroad, tackling disinformation and providing reliable, accurate reporting—I am sure the Minister agrees with that.
I have one question for the Minister. We are in the middle of profound cuts to the BBC World Service, including of Chinese journalists. Will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office say on the record today that it will not defund Mandarin-speaking journalists, because, particularly in covid lockdown, it is crucial that individuals can listen to good journalism on our BBC World Service?

David Rutley: I thank the hon. Member for her considered and important words. Of course, with the calling in of the ambassador, we will raise those matters, and to hear them raised across the House helps to add strength to what we are going to say, so we are grateful for that.
The hon. Member made an important point about protecting journalists across the board, and I will raise that with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and with the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), who is responsible for the Indo-Pacific and is currently travelling.
The hon. Member made some important points about Manchester, and I assure her that we do not have any intention of giving the Chinese Government any excuse to make this a political issue. It is about law, and we will see it through.
The hon. Member made points about the BBC World Service. There is a move to a digital platform, and we have set out our funding plans with the World Service. I will meet it shortly on the wider points that she made.

Tim Loughton: Another day, another blatant abuse of human rights by the Chinese communist Government. Who but that Government would think that arresting, cuffing, kicking and beating a journalist could be construed as for his own good?
We have had an awful lot of calling in the Chinese ambassador. If robust pragmatism is to mean anything, should there not be clear consequences? We have still not expelled the Manchester consulate general, and there should be sanctions against Chinese officials who are waging seriously cruel oppression on brave protesters who are simply trying to stand up for their rights in China and against the oppressive lockdown, which resulted in the deaths of over 100 people in a fire in Wuhan last week. When are we going to get serious about China?

David Rutley: My hon. Friend makes a good point: the case against the BBC journalist was thin to say the least, and we will raise that with the ambassador today. He raises an important point about Manchester, about  which an investigation is ongoing. Unlike the Chinese, we will see that process through before we take action—and we will. On his broader point about the action that we will take, we have put sanctions in place in relation to the atrocities in Xinjiang, so action is being taken. We are also refreshing our integrated review, which will help us to create the framework in which further action can be taken as appropriate.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to SNP spokesperson, Alyn Smith.

Alyn Smith: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this urgent question and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. It is important for the House to take account of the issue. Journalists deserve a special status anywhere: they tell the truth, they shed a light and they do a public service. They need support, so we express our support for Edward Lawrence. I am glad to hear that the ambassador will be summoned to the FCDO, but, frankly, I would like to hear about more consequences. Bluntly, the Manchester investigation also seems to be taking longer than it needs to; I think the House would support consequences on that.
There is a wider issue at play. I am deeply concerned about the pressure that is building within China. The Communist party has boxed itself into a zero covid strategy that has been coupled with a terrifyingly low vaccine uptake, particularly among the elderly. That huge pressure could tend towards greater authoritarianism and a more violent crackdown. What assessment has the FCDO made of the risk to UK nationals in China? Does the advice need to change? On a humanitarian level, is there scope for assisting the Chinese state, for all its faults, with a catch-up vaccine roll-out? That might go some way to alleviating the humanitarian pressure that could tend towards worse consequences for the people of China.

David Rutley: As I have highlighted, consequences have been put in train in relation to other situations, particularly in Xinjiang, and we will be having a robust conversation with the ambassador today. The hon. Member talks about Manchester; I have already highlighted that we are awaiting the details of the police investigation. It is absolutely right that we get that done properly so that we can then take informed action, which was clearly not the case with what happened to our BBC journalist.
On what is happening more broadly with the Chinese Government and their approach to covid, that is for them to decide. We have scientific co-operation and, if and when appropriate, that dialogue can take place. Ultimately, they need to make a decision about how they tackle covid within their borders.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this crucial urgent question?
The Government must always do all they can to protect the safety of His Majesty’s subjects abroad; that is a fundamental duty. I wonder what effect calling in the ambassador will have and whether more does not  need to be done urgently that actually has an effect on the Chinese operation in the UK. Should we not be looking to expel diplomats; to take tougher actions in international forums where Chinese interests are at stake; or to do things that the Chinese would not want us to do, such as improving our relationship with Taiwan or inviting the Dalai Lama on a formal visit by the British Government to show that we are not a pushover and will not support the communist running dogs?

David Rutley: At the calling in today, those issues will be raised in a robust manner. Of course, the safety of our citizens is absolutely key across the world and in China, so we will raise those issues. In terms of providing a robust, muscular approach, as we have seen, given the concerns that have been raised in the House about Uyghur minorities, sanctions and trade guidelines have been put in place. We will continue to take the appropriate action to counter what we believe are incorrect practices.

Chi Onwurah: Last night, the Prime Minister said that our relationship with China would be characterised by “robust pragmatism”. I have no idea what that means, and nor, I expect, do tech start-ups trying to decide about Chinese investment; universities looking at Chinese funding; journalists trying to decide how to cover Chinese stories; businesses looking at their supply chains and market strategies; and Chinese activists risking their lives. Is it not time that we had the long-promised China strategy, not just another hollow slogan?

David Rutley: As I said in answer to a previous question, we will be updating the integrated review to ensure that we continue to invest in our alliances and the capabilities that we need. We have not committed to publish a separate China strategy, but we will continue to maintain as much transparency as possible and keep Parliament updated on our approach to China. The integrated review will be the main focus for that.

Julian Lewis: This disgraceful episode reminds us of the importance of the BBC’s work in China. About a decade ago, ringfenced funding was stopped for the BBC World Service and BBC Monitoring. Some ringfenced funding has now been restored for the World Service but not, as far as I know, for Monitoring. Will the Government undertake to look at that matter? The degree of investment in such services should not be competing with commercial BBC considerations.

David Rutley: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I have already highlighted that a broader strategy is taking place with the World Service, but I will follow up about Monitoring and get back to him in more detail.

Marie Rimmer: The Chinese people are living with this authoritarian rule and they are taking immensely brave actions in protesting against it. We all remember—they will remember better than we do—Tiananmen Square and the way that the Government cracked down on that protest. There is a serious threat and a serious challenge, and now we have “robust pragmatism”—I am trembling at those words. Words mean nothing; action is desperately needed. Manchester is less than 20 miles from where I  live, so this is on our doorsteps. We must take action now and start sanctioning to let the Chinese Government know that we are taking them seriously. They are laughing up their sleeves at us in this state.

David Rutley: The hon. Member makes an important point about the protests that are taking place and we urge the Chinese authorities to respect those who decide to express their views about the current situation. The freedom to protest must be respected. She also makes an important point about Manchester, which is not far from my constituency either. We have these concerns, but we need to go through due process. We have taken steps on sanctions in response to the situation of the Uyghurs and the integrated review will set out a wider strategy.

Vicky Ford: The violent, aggressive crackdown against journalists and protesters is yet another completely unacceptable act by the Chinese Communist party. I have seen at first hand how UK Ministers and our brave diplomats are prepared to stand up against autocratic bullies across the world; often, we are one of the few countries that will do that. When it comes to robustness, I urge my hon. Friend to continue to ensure that the UK is a leader in standing on the side of freedom, especially freedom of speech.

David Rutley: That is something that we take great pride in and is fundamental to our values and those of many other countries. We need to speak up for those values. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her incredible work at the FCDO in making the case and highlighting the robust action that we take and will continue to take.

Alistair Carmichael: What happened to Edward Lawrence was not a one-off or isolated incident. It is part of a deliberate strategy to ensure that reporters in China do not tell the rest of the world what is going on there. This week, the other place will debate the Report stage of the Procurement Bill and will consider an amendment in the name of Lords Alton, Blencathra, Coaker and Fox. It would require the Government to set out a timetable
“for the removal of physical technology or surveillance equipment from the Government’s procurement supply chain”
where there is evidence that the supplier has been engaged or involved in modern slavery, genocide or crimes against humanity. Is the Government’s policy now sufficiently robust to accept the noble Lords’ amendment, or does the Minister think that pragmatism will lead them to vote against it?

David Rutley: I am not aware of that amendment, but I am sure the relevant Ministers will listen to what the right hon. Member has said. I would highlight that action is being taken, however. On 24 November the Government announced that companies subject to the national intelligence law of the People’s Republic of China should not be able to supply surveillance systems to sensitive Government sites. Actions are being taken, and I will get back to the right hon. Member on the particular amendment he talks about.

Jason McCartney: The Chinese Communist party’s attacks on freedom of speech and democratic institutions abroad show that its domestic  authoritarianism is now spreading overseas. Following recent revelations about overseas police stations, attacks on the free press, and now crackdowns on peaceful protestors, what steps are the Government taking to stand against totalitarianism and for British values of democracy and freedom of speech at home as well as abroad?

David Rutley: I have just returned from my first ministerial visit to Latin America—Colombia and Panama—and it is very clear that our amazing civil servants and diplomats speak up, actively call out any authoritarian activity and speak true to our values. We will continue to do that, including this afternoon when the Chinese ambassador is called in.

Sammy Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on obtaining this urgent question, but I must warn you, Mr Speaker, that I think you have set him on a new trend. He was always concerned as to why he was the last person to be called in questions, but now he has found a method to be called first, so just beware, Mr Speaker, because I think you are going to get a tsunami of requests from him.
Is the Minister not concerned that increasingly autocratic regimes seem to think they can kill our citizens, attack people on our own territory, tear up agreements made with us, and affect our vital interests by their behaviour? Does he not have some concern that the message being sent out by the Prime Minister that we will be pragmatically robust—whatever that means—will not scare the Chinese and will not stop them doing what they are doing at present? Given the vital interests we have in the China sea, where China is expanding, and in Taiwan, where China is increasingly aggressive, and given the stranglehold China is seeking on resources across the world through colonialism, the pragmatic—

Lindsay Hoyle: Mr Wilson, I granted the UQ to Mr Shannon, not you. I call the Minister.

David Rutley: rose—

Iain Duncan Smith: It is a team effort.

David Rutley: It is indeed a team effort; we have seen our colleagues work together on these issues before, but it is good to be able to respond to both of them. The points the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) makes are important and we are updating the integrated review and our broader strategy. We are very committed to investing in the alliances and capabilities we need to counter the growing threats and challenges the right hon. Gentleman highlighted in his important contribution—even if it was a bit long.

Rob Butler: I spent much of my early career working as a presenter on BBC World Service TV news. Its correspondents and crews then as now put themselves at risk in order to tell the truth to the world, and we owe them all a debt of gratitude. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that he will be extremely firm and robust in future conversations with China, and indeed with other countries, in insisting that protecting journalists’ rights to report freely is absolutely non-negotiable?

David Rutley: My hon. Friend makes his point with real conviction and experience. We are grateful for his work and owe a debt of gratitude to the reporters who do invaluable work. He can be assured that we will make that point today to the Chinese ambassador.

Henry Smith: Whether it is Chinese Communist officials beating up pro-democracy protestors on the streets of Manchester or Chinese authorities arresting British journalists on the streets of Shanghai, it is deeply worrying and sinister that the so-called Chinese Communist police stations overseas, including in this country, are even a factor that is occurring. May I through my hon. Friend encourage the Minister for Security to come back to this House as soon as practically possible for an update on what actions the British Government will be taking to close down such agents of the Chinese Communist party acting here in British cities?

David Rutley: That is an important point and was well made. As I highlighted earlier, the Minister for Security has committed to coming back to update the House, and the Home Office is reviewing our approach to transnational oppression and will provide an update in due course.

Energy Security

Grant Shapps: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on energy security.
Over half the gas we use in this country is imported. A third of all our energy comes from other countries. Each click of the thermostat and every flick of the kettle sends our money abroad. We are lucky that we have access to secure supplies and strong alliances, but while the price of energy is dictated by the whims of international energy markets, it will be hard to release ourselves from the grip of high bills ushered in by Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine.
The solution is energy sovereignty. We have the ability to generate our own energy here in the UK. We need only look at our renewables to know we are already doing this rather well, but it is time for us to do more: to bring energy home; to clean it up; to reduce our reliance on dirty, expensive fossil fuels; and to create a thriving, secure and affordable energy network. We will use the might of our many brilliant engineers, experts and innovators to build a system fit for the future.
As I mentioned in questions earlier, yesterday I was in Suffolk where, thanks to Government investment, the development of the Sizewell C nuclear plant has been given the green light. It will generate not only cleaner, cheaper, low-carbon electricity for the equivalent of 6 million homes, but 10,000 jobs during construction and thousands more in the supply chain. This is the first direct stake a Government have taken in a nuclear project since 1987, and it is the first step on the ladder to long-term energy independence. This has been long awaited, and to boost the nuclear industry further we will work fast to scope and set up Great British Nuclear. With GBN we are aiming to build a pipeline of new nuclear projects beyond Sizewell C where they offer clear value for money, and we will make announcements on this early in the new year.
It is not just nuclear of course: in order to strengthen our energy sovereignty we must look to our natural resources. This island is, as students of Shakespeare will know, a “fortress built by Nature”, and we are utilising that which nature has bestowed upon us—the howling winds of our coastlines, the crashing waves of our sea, and the radiant sun across our land—to create green, clean, cheap energy at home for us.
Those industries are booming, providing jobs and growth up and down the country. In fact, earlier this month, the country hit a truly historic moment, when our onshore and offshore wind farms provided more than half the UK’s electricity. Furthermore, the National Grid reported that on that day all our renewable energy combined provided 70% of the country’s overall electricity needs. However, we need low-carbon back-up for those days when the wind is not blowing and the sun is dimmed, which is why I have put the Energy Bill back on track. It will fire up our nascent hydrogen and carbon capture industries by providing new business models and liberating private investment. The Bill will hammer into place the high-tech solutions we need to produce our own energy.
Even after record Government support for household and business bills, the British people need us to take bold action, and the war in Ukraine, combined with  sky-high energy prices, has put a spotlight on the importance of energy efficiency. Our ambition is to reduce energy demand by 15% by 2030. That will be backed by £6 billion in cash between ’25 and ’28, coming on top of the £6.6 billion we have already spent during this Parliament.
The majority of British houses are, thanks to their Victorian builds, rather draughty. Our energy performance certificates did not really bother the estate builders of the 19th century, which is why our ECO+ scheme will help households install insulation, saving them hundreds of pounds off their bills each year—money they can spend elsewhere to grow the economy.
Energy sovereignty is now within our grasp. Clean, affordable energy for households and businesses is not a pipe dream; it is a project we have now embarked upon. Building new energy networks will create jobs; producing our own renewable energy will keep bills low; and as businesses and households are relieved of the pressure of crippling bills, the economy can flourish and grow. Energy is coming home.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Ed Miliband: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and can I take the opportunity to welcome him to his new role? We support new nuclear, and I welcome the announcement on Sizewell. The Climate Change Committee tells us that nuclear should play a role as part of the balanced pathway to net zero. In his reply, could he tell us the timetable for Sizewell’s final investment decision and when we expect it to be up and running? I also welcome the return of the delayed Energy Bill, which should never have been paused by the Government.
As for the rest of the statement, I am bound to ask: is that it? Alongside nuclear, we need a sprint for cheap, clean, home-grown renewables, and I have to say to the Secretary of State that, given the chaos, confusion and embarrassment of the Government on onshore wind, I find it extraordinary that he did not clear that up in the House today. Let me remind the House of some facts. The ban on onshore wind in England that they put in place in 2015 has raised bills for every family in this country by £150 each, and keeping the ban in place up to 2030 would mean customers paying £16 billion more on bills compared with a target of doubling onshore wind. Let us be clear: opposing onshore wind waves the white flag on our energy security and raises bills for families.
The only reason we are debating this issue is not that the public do not support onshore wind—they do, by 78%, according to the Department’s own polling—but that dinosaurs on the Government Benches oppose clean energy, and David Cameron and every leader since has indulged them. The problem is that the Secretary of State, who prides himself on being a truly modern man, is part of the fossilised tendency. He was part of the lobbying effort against lifting the ban in April. He said onshore wind was an “eyesore” and created “problems of noise”, and he urged the then Prime Minister to “largely” reject it. I may have had some issues with his predecessor, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), but the Secretary of State’s position is making the Victorian of the Tory party look positively on trend, because the right hon. Member for  North East Somerset after all called for the consenting regime for onshore wind to be brought into line with other infrastructure. Can the Secretary of State clear up once and for all what his position is on onshore wind? Will he now act in the national interest, properly end the ban and finally bring the consenting regime in line with other infrastructure?
On solar, it is the same problem. The Prime Minister spent the summer saying he wanted to block solar, echoed by the Environment Secretary in the last couple of weeks. Blocking solar risks preventing the equivalent of 10 nuclear power stations-worth of power being built, so will the Secretary of State rule out the plans of the previous Environment Secretary to further block solar power on land?
On energy efficiency, frankly this Government should be ashamed of their record, with the green deal fiasco, the green homes grant fiasco and energy efficiency installations running 20 times lower than under the previous Labour Government. Can the Secretary of State tell us from his announcement, which I am afraid contains no new resources, in what year the 19 million cold, draughty homes below energy performance certificate band C would be brought up to that level of decency under his plan? We would do it in a decade. Can he confirm that, at the current rates of installation, under this Government it would not happen till the next century?
We have seen five Energy Secretaries since 2019. To overcome the bills crisis we face and to tackle the climate crisis, we need ambition, consistency and going all in on the green energy sprint. I am afraid we have not had these things from this Government. All we have had is inconsistency, dithering and a Government looking over their shoulder at their own Back Benchers. The Secretary of State has a lot of work to do to convince the country that that is going to change, and if he does not, it means that this Government will land us with higher bills and more energy insecurity, and will fail to take the leadership we need in tackling the climate crisis.

Grant Shapps: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber earlier for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions, but I did point to a quote from him back in 2010, when he said it was “pie in the sky” that the then new Conservative Government would get to 40% renewables by 2020. What happened? By 2020 we had got to 43.1% renewables. That is our record of delivery when it comes to renewables, so I do not think we need to take too many lectures from the Labour party, or from the party that five minutes ago did not support new nuclear power. It failed to commission any of it during its time in office—13 years, was it?—but now that we are getting on with it, all of a sudden it seems to have swapped sides.
On wind power, both offshore and onshore, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman recognises the fact that the strike prices in the contracts for difference are now lower for any version of power production at all when it comes to offshore wind. These turbines are now so large that they cannot even be constructed onshore. They are so big that the turbines cannot be carried by road; they have to put offshore.

Ed Miliband: How big are they?

Grant Shapps: How big are they? It is convenient that the World cup is on because the right hon. Gentleman will be able to envisage this. Single turbines are seven football pitches in scope, as they turn. They are not buildable onshore, which is one of the reasons why the cheapest way to build them offshore to produce energy offshore is to build these mammoth turbines, which go together in groups of 200 or even up to 300. However, I am sure he knows all of this and that, rather than discussing the actual solutions, he likes to throw up the chaff.
Since the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned onshore, I just want to note that the energy White Paper and the net zero strategy have both said exactly the same as we have been saying this week, which is that onshore can happen where it has local consent. I do not know why this local consent principle is so difficult for him to understand. There it is: we are delivering on the renewables, on the nuclear, on the energy independence and sovereignty that this country needs, and there is nothing from the Labour party.

John Redwood: Over the last 48 hours, wind has generated as little as 1% of our electricity, and it was at 2% when I checked this morning, while of course most of the homes we represent use gas for heating. Will the Secretary of State confirm that we need to get on with issuing more production licences for domestic oil and gas, which cuts the carbon dioxide involved and will enable us to keep the lights on, which we cannot do when the wind does not blow?

Grant Shapps: My right hon. Friend is characteristically correct that we cannot always rely on a single form of electricity generation. As the French have found out, we cannot always rely on nuclear. I think France has 71 nuclear power stations in its fleet, but about half of them are down at the moment, so it cannot rely only on nuclear. I was discussing this very fact with my opposite number yesterday. I know that my right hon. Friend welcomes the £700 million development approval cash that we have put into the first new nuclear since the 1980s, and he is absolutely right that we need a broad spread of different energy forms to ensure that we can provide the cheap power we require at all times.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Alan Brown: The reality is that this statement is just a padding out of the press release that BEIS put out earlier. I do welcome the energy company obligation funding for energy efficiency, but I think we need to be clear that this is not Government money; it is money funded from our energy bills and paid for by all bill payers. One issue with ECO4 is that it cannot be combined with other grants, whereas ECO3 did allow that money to be combined with other grants to bring down the costs of external insulation, for example. That is something the Secretary of State could consider to make schemes more affordable for people. The reality with EPC bandings is that there are more homes currently rated D to G than A to C, so much more direct investment is needed in energy efficiency to rectify that.
The Secretary of State talked about energy security, so does that mean that the Government have finally bought out China General Nuclear from the Sizewell C consortium? Talking about sovereignty, will he confirm  that uranium imports are going to be needed to keep Sizewell C going? Is it still the intention to take a 20% stake, and does that mean funding capital of £6 billion or £7 billion towards Sizewell C, because there is still no clarity in today’s statement? On the myth about nuclear baseload, by the time Hinkley Point C comes on stream, seven of the eight existing nuclear power stations will have stopped operating, which proves there is no need for nuclear baseload whatsoever.
On wider energy policy, the Scottish carbon capture and storage cluster was the most advanced project, but it was still only classed as a reserve. Will the Government urgently review this classification, and make the Scottish CCS cluster a track 1 cluster to allow that investment to be released and for that project to go ahead? Pump storage hydro, as I have raised several times, could deliver about 3 GW of power by 2030. All that is needed is an electricity pricing mechanism—a cap and floor mechanism—so will the Government urgently review that and start these discussions?
Finally, we know about the oil and gas investment allowance. If we are going to have continued record investment in renewables, there should be a renewables investment allowance to encourage that, particularly for green hydrogen.

Grant Shapps: Yes, I can confirm that China has now been bought out of the deal on Sizewell. The money yesterday ensured that it is no longer involved in the development.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the future funding for Sizewell. He may be familiar with the new “regulatory asset base” approach to funding, which is built along similar lines to the contracts for difference that have been used so successfully for offshore wind power. That is how we will look to bring income to the project. I should also say that CfDs will now take place on an annualised basis, which will give those including Scottish clusters the opportunity to bid in as well.
I am always curious about the SNP’s approach to energy. As far as I can work out, it does not like the oil and gas industry—even though the industry employs thousands of its constituents—and it absolutely hates nuclear. I am not quite sure what it wants to do on non-windy days.

Mark Jenkinson: Cumberland has sites ready to go for new nuclear. It has expertise, interest and development companies for both small modular reactors and large-scale nuclear. Will the Secretary of State work with me and my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) and for Carlisle (John Stevenson) to bring Rolls-Royce SMR and UK European pressurised reactors 5 and 6 to Moorside?

Grant Shapps: I know that Cumberland has a tremendous amount of expertise and a lot more to offer. When Great British Nuclear launches in the new year, it will help to bring not just traditional Sizewell-style nuclear assets to this country, but the small modular reactors from Rolls-Royce and potentially other competitors.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.

Darren Jones: I welcome the Secretary of State to his role. May I push him slightly further on the financing of Sizewell C? My understanding is that the Government are committed to spending 20% of the cost, and EDF 20% of the cost. That leaves 60% to be financed from the private sector, which I think means that up to £20 billion of financing still needs to be sourced. What will the Government do if they cannot find that from the private sector?

Grant Shapps: I thank the hon. Member for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box. As he will know as Chair of the Select Committee, we have been working on the Sizewell deal for quite some time and we got to the Government investment decision stage yesterday. Of course, we have been talking to potential financiers along with EDF and the French Government. We are confident about the level of interest, but I have no doubt that I will come to his Select Committee, along with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Climate, to discuss that in more detail soon.

Robert Syms: I welcome the announcements on nuclear and specifically on Sizewell C. The Rolls-Royce scheme for modular nuclear seems very exciting, but we do need to get on with it. Does the Secretary of State have a view as to what year we will be starting the first project?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that when I was at Sizewell yesterday, I was with leaders from EDF and the French Government—indeed, the French ambassador was there. Later in the day I spoke to my opposite number about ensuring that we can speed up co-operation on nuclear, as well as on things such as wind, and even on our interconnectors. I was going to say that the point of Great British Nuclear is to really put the acid under this, but I am sure that there is a much better nuclear comparison. It is really about ensuring that we get on with producing our new nuclear fleet a lot faster than has happened in the last few decades.

Clive Efford: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, even with the additional money made available for home insulation, his officials have told him that the money falls short by tens of billions?

Grant Shapps: It is worth the House knowing that we have already put in £6.6 billion. We have announced another £6 billion, which will be spent in the period from 2025 to 2028. The £1 billion that I announced yesterday will cover hundreds of thousands of homes. Of course, it is typical of the Labour party to think that the only way in which this can ever be funded is by the taxpayer and that there are no other routes to market. Lots of homes will be improved by, for example, regulations on build, ensuring that the overall increase in improvements in EPCs comes not just through spending taxpayers’ cash.

Bim Afolami: It is a pleasure to welcome my constituency neighbour to his place as Secretary of State. He and the House will understand the importance of critical minerals to energy security. Could he outline his approach for the UK securing critical mineral supply to ensure that, over the longer term, we have energy security, particularly on things like lithium-ion batteries?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. Critical minerals are so important in securing the entire supply chain. Earlier I mentioned green lithium up in Teesside, which is part of that supply chain. The UK can have the first green lithium production in Europe because of Brexit and our ability, for example, to use more flexible rules that the Europeans cannot access at the moment to produce it, so that is a very good win. He is right about the strategy, and we have a strategy for the most important critical minerals.

Wera Hobhouse: On energy efficiency, will the Government introduce an inspection scheme for all rented accommodation to stop landlords from letting out properties that do not meet energy efficiency minimums?

Grant Shapps: Private landlords are already under an obligation to ensure that their properties reach certain standards. However, as the hon. Member may well know, the Government are consulting on raising that standard in line with the improvements that we would expect over a period of time, and we have already signalled that that would be likely to be to an EPC rating of C.

Andrew Bridgen: What is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of the risk to our country’s energy security this winter from possible disruption to the vital Norwegian gas pipeline, which will supply our country with approximately half of its gas needs this winter? Will he confirm that contingency plans are in place?

Grant Shapps: I am pleased to report that, notwithstanding things like terrorism or developments in the war in Ukraine, we have confidence about both our supply and European supply this winter. The weather has been better than might have been expected and gas supplies are full. I should also point out that the rough storage supply has been brought back online, which has increased our own storage by about 50%. I think that in all expected, imagined circumstances, we will be okay this winter.

Barry Sheerman: This morning the Secretary of State and my Opposition Front-Bench colleagues have spent a long time tilting at windmills. Does he agree that when it comes to getting the right energy and keeping people warm this winter, all of us need to have more courage? Energy from waste could fulfil 20% of our energy needs. Good energy from waste schemes can heat the whole of a town or city, such as Sheffield. Is it not about time that we took energy from waste really seriously?

Grant Shapps: The reality of energy supply is that anyone who thinks there is a single silver bullet—I am not accusing the hon. Member of that at all—is typically wrong. Almost any energy source or supply has its vulnerabilities and its shortcomings. Certainly, energy from waste has its place—we are active in that space—as does ensuring that, for example, we are using energy as efficiently as possible. That is why we announced yesterday that there will be an £18 million campaign about doing straightforward things such as ensuring that the boiler flow is set correctly on people’s boilers.

Selaine Saxby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as we pursue energy sovereignty, floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea can play a vital part? Will he confirm when we can expect an announcement on the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme funding? To maximise the benefits to the communities around the Celtic sea, we need good port infrastructure to drive the project forward.

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Floating offshore wind is an interesting development, and we are actively looking at it and working on it with a whole load of industry partners. She can expect some exciting information in this area in the future.

Caroline Lucas: As a student of 16th-century literature, I enjoyed the Secretary of State’s Shakespearian rhetoric, but I am frankly staggered that he can possibly think that Sizewell C is cheaper—cheaper than what? It is massively costly. The RAB funding model basically means that consumers end up paying twice: once towards the cost of construction to lower the cost of borrowing, and again for more costly energy. The Secretary of State will know that no nuclear power station in the world has been built to time and to budget. He has asked what we do on windy days: may I suggest more interconnectors, far more solar—including ground-based solar—flexible energy demand systems, onshore wind, energy storage, tidals, and the mass energy efficiency and insulation programme that this Government are still failing to deliver?

Grant Shapps: One would think the Green party would welcome 43% of our power being renewable, done under a Conservative Government. On Sizewell C, she asks what it is cheaper than; I will tell her—it is cheaper than being subject to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Julian Lewis: It took an international conflict to lessen and hopefully eliminate Europe’s dependency on a potential enemy, Russia. Can the Minister confirm that we will have no future dependency on China for our nuclear power stations?

Grant Shapps: I can certainly confirm that in the case of Sizewell C; as I mentioned, we are making sure that the Chinese element of that is no longer involved. We do not have a principled objection, apart from where issues of national security are concerned: clearly, energy provision is very much in our sights.

Richard Burgon: I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. Renewable energy is nine times cheaper than gas, and onshore wind is incredibly cheap and incredibly green, so we need to be clear: the Tory ban on onshore wind has kept bills unnecessarily high, and has also undermined energy security. Is it not time that the ban was fully scrapped and the interests of people struggling with their bills were put ahead of the political interests of nimby Tory Back Benchers?

Grant Shapps: It is good that the electorate know what they will be getting if they vote for the Labour party. With us, they will be getting local consent: if people locally are happy to see such power production, they will get it. With them, they will get it willy-nilly.
I want to correct the hon. Gentleman on one fact: the cost projections on new forms of energy supply show that offshore wind is the cheapest available in the next likely bidding round.

Greg Smith: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s focus on securing energy security domestically, but does he agree that that must happen alongside food security, not over the top of it? We have vast swathes of land being taken for solar farms, while warehouse and factory owners cannot install solar because the grid cannot take the power. What is being done to ensure that rooftop solar can happen?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about rooftop solar; I have had it on my own house for the past 11 years, and once it is there, it just carries on producing power. We need to expand that, both domestically and on factory roofs. I will be looking at things like permitted development rights, which enable those panels to go up on top of roofs. There are currently limits to the size of the panels that can be put in place, and I think they are a fruitful source of additional power.

Clive Betts: I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. According to what he has said, Sheffield must be getting some things right: we have been doing energy from waste for over 30 years, since I was council leader, and ITM Power, the leading green hydrogen company, is in my constituency.
Regarding nuclear, is it not important that we ensure a UK supply chain, which has not always happened? Rolls-Royce and SMRs are therefore really important, working with Sheffield Forgemasters, but Madhvani International is also prepared to put billions of pounds of development capital into developing Hitachi-based SMRs—which are already regulated in North America—working with Forgemasters and other Sheffield companies. I am pleased that the Secretary of State will meet me tomorrow to discuss the proposal in more detail, but in principle, I hope that he welcomes it.

Grant Shapps: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s foresightedness in all the schemes that he mentioned. It is a shame that the last Government to invest in nuclear power was Margaret Thatcher’s Government, all the way back in the 1980s; yesterday brought that long drought to an end. As the energy Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, has reminded me, we have already provided £210 million to Rolls-Royce for the small modular reactor programme. I wish both Sheffield and the rest of the country well in attracting some of this new technology, and the supply chain that goes with it, to their constituencies.

Craig Whittaker: Land-based wind is a good, quick and relatively cheap way for the Government to achieve more on alternative energy and security of supply. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that the current partial ban on onshore wind is stifling growth, our march towards net zero, and our quest for security of supply?

Grant Shapps: I think a mixed provision of energy is extremely important—I have talked about solar, offshore and onshore wind, nuclear, and other sources. The answer is very simple: as has been set out in our energy review, the 10-point plan and elsewhere, where there is  local consent, we will ensure that onshore wind can be part of that critical mix. It is a fairly simple principle, which the whole House should be able to unite behind, that local consent is important in these matters. That is the situation that exists, and will continue to exist.

Hywel Williams: The role that community renewable energy production could play is currently hampered by an unwieldy regulatory process. Will the Secretary of State bring forward amendments to the Energy Bill to empower community energy schemes to sell their power directly to local companies and customers, thereby also neatly slashing bills?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We are already doing everything we can to cut that regulatory burden, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness would be happy to take that conversation forward.

Robin Walker: As my right hon. Friend has mentioned, the last time that a Government invested in new nuclear in this way was when my late father was at the Dispatch Box as Energy Minister in 1987. I remember very well the campaign to “Get more for your monergy”—as a nine-year-old boy, I even got to wear the T-shirt. To ensure that our constituents get more for their monergy, does it not make sense to break the link between gas prices and electricity prices? When will my right hon. Friend do that?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend’s late father clearly showed great foresight—it is a shame that it has taken all these years, via a 13-year Labour Administration, to do nothing at all on nuclear. I like the T-shirt that my hon. Friend’s father made him wear, and I agree with him on separating out those prices. At the moment the highest cost in electricity applies to everything, and we are actively looking at breaking that complex relationship.

Matt Western: I welcome the Secretary of State’s quote from Shakespeare, but if the bard were alive today, he would be writing either a comedy about the Government or a tragedy about their energy strategy. We have houses in my constituency being built with insufficient insulation and no solar panels, or solar panels on north-facing roofs. If onshore wind is indeed the cheapest source of energy generation currently, how is it that Warwickshire has no onshore wind turbines?

Grant Shapps: As I mentioned, the reference price shows that other forms of energy could be even cheaper. Until now, solar panels were not as effective on north-facing roofs, for example, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the technology is improving rapidly, with the result that we can install solar panels in more conditions than would otherwise have been available.

Alun Cairns: We need to recognise that developing our renewable mix of energy to 43% is a significant success—far more successful than other comparable nations—yet in these current weather circumstances, as people switch on their electric kettles during tonight’s football match, wind will only generate 2% of that energy mix. That underlines the importance of my right hon. Friend’s statement, so will  he provide further detail and timescales regarding when small and advanced modular reactors will be possible? Wales has two of the preferred development sites, but does my right hon. Friend further agree that the Welsh Government need to be supportive of those projects to make them a reality?

Grant Shapps: My right hon. Friend is right. In Wales and Scotland, the devolved Administrations need to support new nuclear provision to provide energy security for their constituents. He talked about 43.1% of our energy coming from renewable power. Opposition Members said that it could not be done, but it has been done ahead of time and we will only go further.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his answers. In BEIS questions today, he referred to 10,000 highly skilled jobs and securing UK energy security, with British energy used for British homes. Some 6 million of those homes can be powered by the Sizewell C nuclear plant. Has the Secretary of State come to an assessment of how these decisions will have an impact on energy security for the devolved institutions? What steps will be taken to ensure that Northern Ireland, which I come from and represent, plays a part in securing energy independence?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman is right that a single nuclear power station can power 6 million homes, whereas a modular reactor can power perhaps 1.5 million homes. As a result of interconnectors, that power—when it is generated in Great Britain—helps Northern Ireland and all the devolved Administrations around the country. He is on the right track; that is the kind of energy independence that I mentioned in my statement.

David Duguid: The Secretary of State will be aware of analysis from the Climate Change Committee that states that we will not get to net zero in this country without carbon capture and storage. I therefore welcome his commitment to helping to liberate private investment in carbon capture and storage and other technologies. The Scottish cluster alone is poised to have billions of dollars-worth of investment. While he is pondering the acceleration of that project, will he consider joining me on a visit to the St Fergus gas terminal in my constituency? It has not only carbon capture and storage, but blue hydrogen, sustainable aviation fuel and net zero thermal power generation, and grid capacity and resilience improvements are being made in and around it.

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of private investment in carbon capture, utilisation and storage. The Energy Bill will look to unlock that private investment.

Aaron Bell: I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. Global gas prices have been at record highs. That has been caused by Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine and it has been a problem for the whole of Europe, so I welcome what the Government have done to protect my constituents from this impact through our energy price guarantee. Does he agree that the long-term solution to ensure stable and lower prices is to have diverse sources of British energy providing the power to our homes and businesses?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is right. We need energy independence, security and sovereignty. That is what we are building in co-operation with our partners, with interconnectors, so that we are never again subject to the whims of a dictator from the east, as has happened this year.

Andy Carter: I welcome many of my right hon. Friend’s steps to ensure energy security, particularly in the nuclear sector. He talks a great deal about Sizewell C; Warrington is the home of the National Nuclear Laboratory, so the decision will secure many of the 2,500 jobs that nuclear generates in Warrington. The north-west leads the way in carbon capture and storage and hydrogen technology with HyNet, so will he outline how hydrogen can play an important part in large industry energy generation for the future?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is right about the role of hydrogen. I know from my time as Secretary of State for Transport how important that will be, particularly for transport in the much larger category of goods vehicles, buses, coaches, marine vessels and aviation. This is not just about the jobs in nuclear, which the Sizewell decision and Great British Nuclear will help, but about the development in hydrogen power. In particular, those hubs with great expertise will be tremendously important, and this Government fully back them.

Jack Brereton: Investment in energy-intensive industries such as ceramics must also be a key part in reducing our overall energy consumption. Will my right hon. Friend look at what more can be done to invest in those key manufacturing sectors not only to reduce that energy dependence, but to reduce costs and support jobs in places such as Stoke-on-Trent?

Grant Shapps: The brilliant industries—particularly ceramics—in my hon. Friend’s constituency have been badly impacted by Putin’s war. The energy bill relief scheme has helped, and such things as the scheme for energy-intensive industries will assist, too. Ultimately, this comes to the point of today’s statement: energy independence, with low-cost and affordable energy, is the way forward not just for domestic users, but businesses such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Bill Presented

Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Cat Smith presented a Bill to introduce a system of proportional representation for Parliamentary elections, for elections for directly-elected mayors in England, for local authority elections in England and for police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2023, and to be printed (Bill 201).

National Eye Health Strategy

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Marsha de Cordova: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish a national eye health strategy for England; and to require that strategy to include measures for improving eye health outcomes, for reducing waiting times for eye health care, for improving patient experiences of eye health care, for ensuring that providers of eye health care work together in an efficient way, for increasing the capacity and skills of the eye health care workforce, and for making more effective use of research and innovation in eye health care.
The Bill would ensure that regardless of where one lives, everyone can access the right care where and when they need it, eliminating the postcode lottery and addressing the inequalities in access to eye care services. An estimated 2 million people are living with sight loss in the UK. We rely on our eyes every day, yet we do not give much thought to our eye health until our vision changes.
A report earlier this summer showed that 17.5 million adults in the UK had not had an eye test in the past two years, as recommended. Anyone can be impacted by sight loss, and Members from across the House will have hundreds of constituents affected. Fifty per cent. of all sight loss is avoidable and 250 people begin to lose their sight every day, with a shocking 21 people a week losing their sight due to a preventable cause.
Eye care services in England are under intense pressure due to huge backlogs as a result of the pandemic, demand from an ageing population and low recruitment and retention of all groups of the ophthalmology clinical workforce. More than 650,000 people are on the waiting list in England, of whom 37% have been waiting for over 18 weeks and over 4% have been waiting for more than a year—that is, 26,000 people who have been waiting for more than 12 months to see a specialist.
Ophthalmology has been the busiest NHS out-patient clinic for the past three years. Delays to diagnosis and treatment can lead to a complete loss of sight. For example, patients with age-related macular degeneration can experience rapid and sometimes complete central vision loss within weeks if not treated. As well as the social and emotional impact of sight loss, there is a huge economic cost to the UK economy, which is estimated to be £36 billion annually.
To respond to the crisis in eye health, the Government can commit to implementing a national eye health strategy for England that would include measures to improve eye health outcomes, reduce waiting times, improve patient experiences, increase the capacity and skills of the workforce and make more effective use of data, research and innovation.
In the first instance, the Government could seek to appoint a single Minister with responsibility for eye health rather than having the current situation where multiple Ministers are responsible.
The strategy should include the following areas. First, there should be an eye health and sight loss pathway to require care and support for those with sight loss, focusing on the provision of non-clinical community support to complement the work of community optometrists, ophthalmologists in hospitals and rehab  officers. The pathway must focus on the physical and emotional impacts of being diagnosed with sight loss, as research has shown that people affected are likely to experience poor mental health lifetime outcomes such as depression and anxiety. It should not only address geographical eye health inequalities, but ensure more equity of access to eye care among communities and populations more at risk of being unable to access NHS sight tests, including people who are homeless and people with a learning disability.
The second area is to improve connections between primary and secondary care, with an emphasis on integrated care systems and on improving the relationships and collaboration across the two services so that they can work more effectively together while ensuring timely and accurate referrals. That would significantly improve patient experiences and health outcomes.
The third area is workforce expansion. Limited capacity is a particular concern in eye care because there is a significant shortage of eye doctors. Back in 2018, the Royal College of Ophthalmologists revealed that 434 additional specialist posts were required to meet demand, and we know that the situation is now even worse. The World Health Organisation’s Workforce 2030 plan recognises the fundamental role of the workforce in improving health outcomes. A national strategy for eye health must address that issue, placing emphasis on the recruitment, training and upskilling of medical and non-medical eye health professionals.
The fourth area is health intelligence and data. Meaningful action starts with good-quality data, but for too long population data has not been used effectively to pinpoint the location of need and places where opportunities for change can be found. A strategy should involve focusing on robust data collection to inform decisions and improve the delivery of the service. Advances in research and technology, from how people are diagnosed to how they receive treatment, must be incorporated. Effective and efficient methods are available, but they are not being used. A strategy would change that.
Finally, the fifth area is raising awareness of eye health by creating better public health messaging. Nearly 2 million people each year turn up at an accident and emergency department or try to get a GP appointment for a problem that could be dealt with by visiting a community optometrist. We need campaigns to raise awareness of the importance of maintaining good eye health and to educate the public on the differences between eye screening and eye tests, along with improved signposting on where to go for help, should one need it.
Health strategies have delivered positive outcomes in Scotland, as they have in England for other diseases, but at present England is the only country in the UK without an eye health strategy. It is important to note that for such a strategy to be successful and of value, it must be designed in collaboration with stakeholders, including blind and partially sighted people, civil society groups, care providers and the industry. It must also have sufficient resource and investment.
Given the scale of the problems, it is in the Government’s interest to commit to a strategy. The benefits would transform lives, alleviate pressures on the health service and reduce economic costs. We should make it our goal to ensure that no one loses their sight unnecessarily. I thank everyone who has contributed to the Bill, including the partnership The Eyes Have It, the Thomas Pocklington Trust, industry leaders such as Specsavers and Roche and, most importantly, people living with sight loss. The sector has been united in the call for a national eye health strategy. It is time for the Government to act.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Marsha De Cordova, Kate Osamor, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Sir Stephen Timms, Rosie Duffield, Janet Daby, Kim Johnson, Ian Byrne, John McDonnell, Clive Lewis, Dr Rupa Huq and Jim Shannon present the Bill.
Marsha De Cordova accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 202).

Privilege

Rosie Winterton: I remind hon. Members of the decision in question and of the procedure on this motion. The decision before the House is whether to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. It will be for the Committee to report back on whether it considers that there has been a contempt.
Although it is in order for hon. Members to refer to the issues cited in the motion, it is not in order to make general criticisms of the conduct of the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) or of any other hon. Member. Good temper and moderation must be maintained in parliamentary language. Previous debates on such motions have usually been relatively short; I hope that this debate will be focused and brief. Any hon. Member who wishes to speak needs to stand at the beginning of the debate to ensure that they catch my eye.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has tabled a motion for debate on the matter of privilege, which Mr Speaker has agreed should take precedence today. I call David Davis to move the motion.

David Davis: I beg to move,
That the matter of the actions and subsequent conduct of the hon Member for Ochil and South Perthshire in relation to correspondence from the Speaker on a matter of privilege be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I have been advised by the Clerks that this is a very narrow motion, so I will stick strictly and exclusively to the matter at hand. Before I come to the substantive motion, however, I want to say something to those members of the public who may think that this is an arcane or even abstruse issue.
Ever since Speaker Lenthall told King Charles I that
“I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me,”
the Speaker has been the spokesman, champion and protector of the Members and institutions of this place, as well as being the impartial arbiter of our proceedings. If hon. Members think that that is just a piece of ancient history, they ought to consider more recent times. Mr Speaker’s more recent predecessors have been criticised on issues of impartiality or for failing to protect Members: for example, Mr Speaker Martin’s failure to protect my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) was highly controversial at the time and very important.
As for upholding the rights of Back Benchers and Opposition Members, we need only look at Mr Speaker’s fierce criticism of the Government during the statement yesterday, when he upheld our rights. It is therefore vital for Members to protect the integrity, impartiality and apolitical nature of the Speaker’s office. That point is clearly recognised in “Erskine May”—hardly a polemical document—at paragraph 15.14, which states that
“reflections on the character of the Speaker or accusations of partiality in the discharge of their duties”
are a punishable offence. “Erskine May” also recognises that a Member’s behaviour and conduct outside this House count towards that.
I turn to the substantive motion. Following an appearance by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) before the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport while she was Secretary of State, the Committee opened an investigation into several claims that she made, but ultimately it decided against any action. The Committee as a whole published a special report—[Interruption.] [Hon. Members: “He’s turned up.”] Oh, right.
The Committee as a whole published a special report, which said:
“we may have sought a referral to the Privileges Committee but, as her claims have not inhibited the work of the Committee and she no longer has a position of power over the future of Channel 4, we are, instead, publishing this Report to enable the House, and its Members, to draw their own conclusions.”
It is crucial in this matter to remember that the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) sits on that Committee. He did not ask for a Division before the report was published; he did not vote against it; he did not publish a dissenting opinion on that report. Instead, he wrote to Mr Speaker asking him to give precedence to matters reported on by the Committee, even though the Committee itself was not seeking such precedence. As would be expected, Mr Speaker did the usual thing, and—in his own words—decided to
“respect the Committee’s assessment of the situation.”—[Official Report, 23 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 291.]
After Mr Speaker had replied to the hon. Member privately, as is the convention with privilege issues, the hon. Member took to Twitter. He brandished a copy of Mr Speaker’s letter in his video. He broke all the conventions on the privacy of Speakers’ correspondence on privilege, and disclosed a partial and partisan account of Mr Speaker’s letter. He said on Twitter:
“He’s considered my letter, but he’s decided to take no further action.”
In doing so, he implied that it was Mr Speaker’s unfettered decision not to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. Nowhere in his filmed statement did he tell his followers that Mr Speaker was following normal procedure by accepting the will of the DCMS Committee—I imagine that is why Mr Speaker described his action last week as giving a “partial and biased account” of the correspondence—and nowhere in his statement did he tell his followers that it was he himself who sat on that Committee and signed off the conclusions.
All of us in this House have a duty to uphold its rules and institutions, but by knowingly breaching the confidentiality of the Speaker’s correspondence, the hon. Member has done the opposite. This is a clear breach of our rules. The proper response after Mr Speaker’s censure of him for his behaviour last week was for the hon. Member to accept the seriousness of his actions, apologise properly to the House, and delete the offending tweets. If he had done so, I imagine that would have been the end of the matter; indeed, I would not have made my point of order on the day. However, he failed to apologise, and instead compounded his misdemeanour. Taking to Twitter once again, he claimed that he
“offered no apology as there was no misrepresentation.”

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: He claimed that he
“didn’t ‘release’ the Speaker’s letter. I summarised it entirely fairly.”
That is untrue. He misled the country by deliberately withholding the way in which this decision had been arrived at and his part in it. He also retweeted an account that was directly critical of Mr Speaker, saying that Mr Speaker’s statement had been merely “Ermine pursuing theatrics” and that Mr Speaker was placing his
“integrity above that of parliament”.

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire had again compounded his misdemeanour by deliberately attempting to undermine the impartiality and integrity of the Speaker’s office. It is the role of the Speaker of this House to protect Members and stand up for its Back Benchers, and it is the Members’ duty, on our part, to uphold the dignity of the Speaker’s office.

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: I do not believe any of this conduct to be appropriate for a Member of this House. However, that is not for me to judge, as a single, ordinary Member, which is why this is not a motion to condemn, but a motion to pass the matter to the Privileges Committee of the House of Commons.

John Nicolson: At the heart of this issue, I believe, is accountability. What should happen to Members who break the rules, and how open should our procedures be? What should the public be allowed to know?
Let me say at the outset that I am very sorry that the Speaker feels that my revealing his decision not to have a debate in the House about our Committee’s report has put him in a bad light with the public. That was never my intention. My intention—[Interruption.] If Members allow me to develop my speech, they will hear my points. My intention was merely to let the public know what had been decided.
I am accused of breaking a rule myself, and I would like to explain the circumstances to the House. I am a member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. We held a hearing with the then Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), at which she claimed that a Channel 4 reality series in which she had appeared some years ago had used actors pretending to be members of the public. She claimed that they had confessed this to her. A member of the production team who lived on the estate concerned—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman missed my opening remarks, but it is quite clear that this is not about the actions of any other Member. It is not about what happened in the Committee with any other right hon. Member. It is about the motion before us.

John Nicolson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me say that there was considerable press interest in our Committee’s work, and I decided that we should send a copy of the report to the Speaker. I thought that time might be set aside for a debate about referring it to  the Committee of Privileges. However, the Speaker wrote back to me saying that he did not believe the case met the threshold for a debate. I recorded a video summarising the Speaker’s decision, and I tweeted it. I offered no comment about the Speaker, nor did I criticise him. There was considerable public interest, and I soon discovered that the Speaker was angry. He believed that I should not have reported his decision. Last Wednesday, he told me in the House that he thought I had not summarised him accurately, and that I should not have reported him at all. It was not my intention in any way to summarise him inaccurately.
Before I was elected to the House, I was a journalist—a reporter for “Newsnight”, among other current affairs shows. I believe in open democracy, but I also believe in maintaining agreed confidentiality. It did not cross my mind that revealing the Speaker’s decision on this was a breach of privilege. After all, what was I to say if journalists asked me whether I had written to the Speaker? Was I to say, “Yes”? If they asked me, “Has the Speaker responded? Has the Speaker given a ruling?”, was I then to say, “I’m afraid I can’t tell you”? I did not consider that I had broken any confidence or betrayed any trust. I did not imagine that the Speaker’s decision on a matter of importance to my constituents could not be revealed. Moreover, I believe that I summarised the Speaker fairly, but I am in the unfortunate position of finding myself unable to prove that, because in order to do so I would have to release the Speaker’s letter to me in its entirety—something which, as we have established, the Speaker does not believe I should do.
There has been a suggestion that I printed only half the letter. That is not the case. The Speaker’s letter to me came as a letter through the post. There was no need for me to print it, nor did I publish it, nor did I show its contents to the camera, nor did I leak it to others. I was very open in the way I talked about it, which I hope shows that I did not think I was behaving improperly. There has also been some suggestion that the Select Committee did not wish to see this matter proceed to a privileges debate. That, too, is not the case. The Committee decided not to refer the Member concerned because she was no longer a Cabinet Minister, but the Committee left open the option for others to do so. Indeed, some Committee members expected that to happen. I agreed with the findings of the Committee, which were unanimous and cross-party.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who wrote to the Speaker asking for this debate, has just spoken again. I have never met the right hon. Member or spoken to him here, although I may have interviewed him in the past. He is not a member of the Select Committee, and he has previously championed free speech.

Rosie Winterton: Order. We really are not here to discuss the matters surrounding the Committee itself. The hon. Gentleman needs to stick to what is in the motion.

John Nicolson: May I just say this, Madam Deputy Speaker? I spoke to the Chair and the Clerk of the Committee today. I gave them exactly the words that I intended to use, and obtained their permission to use the words that I have just repeated.

Rosie Winterton: Order. It is up to me to make the final decision. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Those people do not give the hon. Gentleman permission; I do.

John Nicolson: The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden spoke last Wednesday following the Speaker’s remarks from the Chair, and he laid into me with some vigour, using what appeared to be a pre-prepared speech. He was especially exercised by what he saw as my breach of parliamentary etiquette. It is worth me pointing out in that context that he did not contact me to inform me that he planned to speak about me, which as we all know is the convention. I was not afforded the opportunity to reply last Wednesday, but before moving on to other business the Speaker concluded:
“I am going to leave it there for today”.—[Official Report, 23 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 292.]
I therefore assumed that the matter had been laid to rest. However, the right hon. Member then took to Twitter to pursue his criticism of me, complete with a video of his speech.

Rosie Winterton: Order. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to be criticising the right hon. Gentleman who moved the motion. He can speak to the motion, not outside it, so can we just stick to the matter in hand?

John Nicolson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Simon Hoare: rose—

John Nicolson: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Simon Hoare: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who on a personal level I like. Can I just give him some friendly advice? Put the spade down.

John Nicolson: People are watching this, and I am pleased that they are. I think they will draw conclusions, having heard both sides of the argument.

Pete Wishart: I have been in this House for 21 years, and as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been a member of the House of Commons Commission for something like four years. I had absolutely no idea that we could not reveal that we had had correspondence with the Speaker or summarise what it was. How on earth was my hon. Friend supposed to know that, when I, with my 21 years in this House and my service on the Commission, did not know it? All of this seems to be, at best, some sort of means for retribution and, at worst, institutional bullying, because that is what it is starting to feel like right now.

Rosie Winterton: Order. Interventions can be made, but they should be brief. I would also remind hon. and right hon. Members that if the House decides to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges, these sorts of arguments can be made there. This debate is on the simple matter of the motion. Other arguments can be made to the Committee if the House decides it wants the matter to go to the Committee.

John Nicolson: I know that the Speaker has been on the receiving end of often unpleasant comments from the public since I revealed his decision. That was never   my intention. I did not use his name, I did not link to him and I did not post contacts for him. I am very sorry that a pile-on has ensued. I have friends across the House, and I believe in vigorous but fair debate. I have no time for abusive behaviour; I do not engage in it and I deplore it.
I am advised that I breached a parliamentary rule by referring to the Speaker’s letter, but as I have explained, I did not knowingly do so. I would never reveal a confidence. I did not believe that the Speaker’s decision on a parliamentary matter was a secret. Indeed—this is perhaps not a matter for today—should there not be a distinction between correspondence containing confidences and correspondence on policy decisions? Has every Member who has revealed a Speaker’s decision by letter found themselves the subject of a parliamentary privilege debate, as I am today? Although this convention appears to exist, is it not the very antithesis of open democracy? Many Members on both sides of the House have told me privately that they did not know this rule existed.

Tim Loughton: I should declare an interest as another Member who appeared in the very same reality show that the hon. Gentleman’s Committee discussed. He has not apologised to the Speaker. Does he not think that, having betrayed what was marked as private correspondence, which clearly and rightly aggrieved the Speaker, if he had given an apology at the time when it was raised by the Chair last week, he would not be in this position now? Why did he not do that? Would he not like to bring back at least some decorum by apologising profusely to the Speaker and the House now for the offence he has caused?

John Nicolson: The hon. Gentleman says the letter was marked “private”. I do not know how he knows what was on the letter. I have shown the letter to absolutely nobody. But since he challenges me, the letter was not marked “private”. If it had been, I would not have talked about it. It is a core belief of people in my former profession that we hold confidences and that we will go to prison rather than reveal our sources. The letter was not marked “private”. It was about a matter of policy on whether or not a debate could be held, and I did not think that it was confidential.

Wera Hobhouse: The hon. Member has said that he was aware that the Speaker had become very angry. As the Speaker serves all of us, and as this is all about decorum, is it not time that he apologised to the Speaker? Maybe that would resolve a lot of things.

John Nicolson: I want to answer that question honestly. I am slightly torn because, on the one hand, I am deeply sorry that the Speaker is upset. Those who know me will know that I do not ever conduct politics in a way that aims to be offensive, and I am truly sorry that the Speaker is upset. I am truly sorry that I have upset the Speaker, but it would be disingenuous of me to say that I knowingly revealed this. I could not have been more open by going on camera and discussing this. I clearly was not trying to hide it. If people in my profession—my former profession and this profession—want to pass things into the public domain in a sleekit or surreptitious way, they give them to journalists. I did not do that. I stood up and talked about the letter, not revealing its contents in detail but summarising it.
This place often seems hard to understand for the general public, and its procedures can appear opaque. I suspect that most people will find it curious that the Member who misled the Select Committee was subject to no consequences but the Member who revealed that—

Rosie Winterton: Order. The hon. Gentleman absolutely needs to withdraw that remark.

John Nicolson: I withdraw that remark. I, however, am subject to the current debate. I note that, over the years, these debates have been confined to people who have committed or been accused of committing some of the most egregious offences, but I have yet to meet a Member who thinks this falls into that category.
I want to conclude by saying again that it was never my intention to insult the Speaker. I do not know him well but we have only ever had friendly exchanges when meeting. I bear him absolutely no ill will. I deplore any and all online abuse that he has suffered. Nobody, I imagine, is enjoying this debate—least of all me. I find interpersonal conflict stressful and unpleasant. I hope the House concludes that there was no malicious intent in anything that I did, and I apologise to the Speaker for breaching a House rule, but given the all-party nature of the Committee report I sought no party political advantage and I hope that Members here today will seek no party political advantage. My only motivation was to do what I always try to do, and that is to engage with the debate and to communicate my work here with constituents and with journalists as openly and fairly as I can.

Peter Bottomley: I received a letter today from someone who met me at a conference, saying that I was right in saying to her then that although I was not directly involved in her cause, it was a cause worth fighting for. I took that as a tribute. It was the LGB Alliance conference across the road from here. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) talked about pile-ons, and he constantly used the term on Twitter. That may or may not be relevant to the Committee of Privileges, if the matter is referred to that Committee—[Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order. I have to say to the Father of the House that this is not about criticising other people’s behaviour. It is strictly about the motion before us.

Peter Bottomley: In the Hansard of 23 November, at 12.33 pm, Mr Speaker said he was awaiting an apology. The response from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire expressed regret at the pile-on against the Speaker, and we have heard today that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to be offensive to anybody.
I think the proper description of last week’s exchange with the Speaker, as shown on the record in Hansard, is that the Speaker is awaiting an apology, which we have not yet heard. We have heard an explanation this afternoon that the hon. Gentleman was asking for a debate on a   Select Committee report. The way to ask for a debate on a Select Committee report is to ask the Leader of the House. That is the normal parliamentary procedure.
The hon. Gentleman was actually asking for a privileges reference, which was not accepted. If a Member has been here for 21 years, they know the rules changed some years ago. Requests for a privileges reference are taken up in private with the Speaker, who then gives a view. If an hon. Member receives a reply from the Speaker saying no, and if they decide to make it public that they asked, they have a responsibility to be fully open about Mr Speaker’s whole response, not a part of it, as the Speaker said in the Chamber last week at 12.33 pm.
I believe the House has a responsibility to back the Speaker, right or wrong, but especially when he is right. On this issue, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is right, and I ask the House to support the reference to the Committee of Privileges. After that, when the Committee has reported, we can decide whether to have a fuller debate and whether the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire has, by then, done as the House would expect, and as the Speaker asked, and given a full apology.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.

Deidre Brock: It is extremely unfortunate that matters have come to this, but I understand the conventions of the House that brought us here. The Scottish National party respects the need for a transparent and open process.
The Leader of the House has previously spoken of the importance of parliamentary modernisation, and of how the House operates unlike any normal administrative centre in the public or private sector, and I agree with her. The procedures of the Houses of Parliament need updating, and this situation perhaps provides us with an example of where some reform could take place.
I am confident, having spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), that he was completely unaware of the conventions of the House at the heart of this issue. He sought clarity on proper procedure and was caught out. He has already spoken at length, with his customary eloquence, outlining his position and how there was no malicious intent.
In closing, I repeat that the SNP respects the need for transparency and openness.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Leader of the House.

Thangam Debbonaire: The upholding of conventions is essential to the smooth running of this House and to the foundation of political order in this country. “Erskine May” is clear—there is a search function, and I checked this morning—about the procedure for raising a complaint about a breach of privilege. The rules are there to find for a Member who seeks to raise such a complaint. “Erskine May” says that Members need the permission of the Speaker and must request it in writing. There is a long-standing convention that,  when Members write to the Speaker, they do so on the basis that the correspondence in both directions will remain confidential. This is especially the case on matters of privilege. Paragraph 15.32, footnote 6, is explicit:
“It is not the practice for such letters to be made public… Members should not challenge the Speaker’s decision in the House.”
As Members of this House we all hold parliamentary privilege, but that comes with responsibility. We have a duty not to misuse it, and we have a duty to respect the Chair’s rulings. Our conduct must live up to the high expectations that the public should have a right to expect of us.
I therefore believe the conduct of the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) warrants an investigation by the Committee of Privileges, as requested by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), so I will support the motion today, and I urge others to do so.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for moving the motion. I deeply regret it, but I understand why he has had to do so.
I heard what the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) said today, and I am glad to see him in the Chamber. I do not think his argument that he was not aware of the right course of action or of the appropriate response to journalistic inquiries, which is to state that any such correspondence is confidential, is a reason for not passing the motion. I sincerely hoped he would make an apology. I think there is consensus across the House about the right course of action. Had he taken that opportunity, the matter could potentially have been brought to an end today.
The procedure for raising breaches of privilege is a long-standing and important convention that ensures the privileges and rights of this House are protected.

John Nicolson: I think there is a misunderstanding. I quite clearly said that I was apologising to Mr Speaker. I was unaware of this convention, and I wished to cause him no hurt. I apologised, and I am repeating that now.

Penny Mordaunt: I am afraid that the way in which the hon. Gentleman phrased it, and the way in which he has not appreciated—

Pete Wishart: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Penny Mordaunt: I will continue.
The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire has not appreciated the damage that has been done in these circumstances. The Speaker’s role in this is integral, including in avoiding—

Pete Wishart: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Penny Mordaunt: No, I will not give way. I am going to have my say.
The Speaker’s role in this is integral, including in avoiding frivolous complaints. It is important that his role is respected.

Pete Wishart: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Penny Mordaunt: No.
Correspondence on such matters must remain confidential and, in this place, we all suffer if that does not happen. As Mr Speaker noted, it is not for him to determine whether a contempt has been committed. I therefore support the motion and the need for the Committee of Privileges to thoroughly and correctly investigate any potential breach. I think we all regret where we are today. I am sorry the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire did not make a full and frank apology, and I support the motion.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 371, Noes 16.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the matter of the actions and subsequent conduct of the hon Member for Ochil and South Perthshire in relation to correspondence from the Speaker on a matter of privilege be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill (Allocation of Time)

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill:

Timetable

(1)(a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3)(a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (15)(a) of this Order.
(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(8)(a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(9) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (8) of this Order.

Subsequent stages

(10)(a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.

Reasons Committee

(12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.

Miscellaneous

(13) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(14) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(15)(a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(16)(a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(17)(a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings in respect of such a debate.
(18) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(19)(a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

Northern Ireland  (Executive Formation etc) Bill

Second Reading

Chris Heaton-Harris: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Three weeks ago, I stood at this Dispatch Box setting out my profound regret that the Northern Ireland Executive had not been restored by the legal deadline of 28 October. As I said then, I believe strongly that the people of Northern Ireland deserve a functioning Assembly and Executive, where locally elected representatives can address issues that matter most to those who elect them. That has been denied to the people of Northern Ireland since February, and Northern Ireland has been without fully functioning devolved institutions for the bulk of this year. That is both unacceptable and a cause for alarm.
What the people of Northern Ireland would welcome is getting their devolved institutions up and running. They are worried that almost 187,000 people in Northern Ireland have been waiting for more than a year for their first out-patient appointment; they are concerned that there is a higher share of working-age adults in Northern Ireland with no formal qualifications than anywhere else in the UK; and they are worried that a quarter of children in Northern Ireland are growing up in poverty.
There is also a legitimate and strong concern about the functioning of the Northern Ireland protocol. This concern is felt very strongly indeed in the Unionist community. It is clear, though, that the Executive will not return overnight, and that a further election in the immediate term would be unlikely to produce a significantly different result.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way so quickly into his speech. He used the term “considerable alarm”. I wonder whether he is pondering what is taking place in the Hutch criminal trial in the courts in Dublin and the implications that the outcome of that trial could have for the operation of any political activity not only in Northern Ireland, but in the Republic of Ireland. Is that being factored in to the Secretary of State’s alarm?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The trial is certainly being watched assiduously by my officials and me. However, this Bill is about the restoration of the Executive in Northern Ireland—something that is very important indeed. Unfortunately, the time has come for the Government, and indeed for hon. and right hon. Members in this House, to take action in response to the governance gap that has emerged in Northern Ireland, and that is what this Bill seeks to do.

Gavin Robinson: The Secretary of State outlines his disappointment that we do not have functioning devolution in Northern Ireland and I share that disappointment, but he knows acutely why the Government are not functioning in Northern Ireland. Instead of sharing his disappointment, can he tell us why, in the three weeks since the duty to call an election—or  the past 10 months—there has been no fundamental, sincere or considered progress on resolving the Northern Ireland protocol?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I am afraid that it is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say that. He and this Government are absolutely not commenting day-to-day about the talks between this Government and the European Commission. As both the Foreign Secretary and I have set out at the Dispatch Box, we will continue not to do that.

Simon Hoare: rose—

Chris Heaton-Harris: I will give way one more time.

Simon Hoare: While there is probably never a good time to collapse Stormont, does my right hon. Friend agree that, at a time of pressing problems occasioned by a cost of living crisis and with all the concerns that affect all communities and both traditions across Northern Ireland, now is most certainly not the time to be depriving Northern Ireland of its elected representatives who serve the good people who put them there?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, for his point. Although I agree with him, I cannot put myself in the shoes of those who represent the different communities in Northern Ireland. I understand the views and the strongly held sentiment about the functioning of the Northern Ireland protocol and the concern that there is within the Unionist community. That has been borne out by polls across the piece.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Chris Heaton-Harris: I feel that I have provoked all sorts of things. I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I take three interventions and then move on, because there is also a football game to get to at the end of the day.

Jim Shannon: In Northern Ireland, 17% of people are in poverty, and 12% in absolute poverty; I understand what the Chair of the Select Committee is referring to when it comes to addressing that. The Government went through the legislation in this House to ensure that the money offered on the UK mainland is equal to that offered in Northern Ireland. If the Government move with some urgency to ensure that that happens—on energy prices and everything else—the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly cannot operate today because of the Northern Ireland protocol should not in any way hold up help going to people who are very much in need.

Chris Heaton-Harris: But, unfortunately, it did. When Ministers were in place they were unable to help us with the money going through the system. Now, as per the responses to the urgent question and to the questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy earlier, there are unbelievable difficulties in the UK Government doing what the hon. Member and I both want to happen.

Brandon Lewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his generosity in taking interventions. He is quite right about the budgetary challenges facing the people in Northern Ireland at this time, with the economic structures and problems we are seeing, which is why it is so important that we see Stormont back up and running. We all know—this has been touched on already—why Stormont is not functioning, so does he agree that it is imperative that the European Union understands the strength of feelings in Northern Ireland, across communities but particularly in the Unionist community? Without my right hon. Friend commenting on the detailed negotiations, does he not agree that the European Union must show flexibility in allowing an agreement to be formed between it and the UK Government that will facilitate Stormont’s getting back up and running, especially with the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement close upon us?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my right hon. Friend for his wise words. I know, because I was present in some of the meetings, that he articulated those words directly to representatives of the European Commission when he was Secretary of State, and he is completely right in what he says.

Paul Girvan: I go back to the intervention by the Chair of the Northern Ireland Committee and state that, while the cost of living is affecting everyone in Northern Ireland, it is exacerbated by the protocol and the costs that are being added on to every single basket of shopping bought in Northern Ireland.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point that is well evidenced; that is why the protocol needs fixing.
I have separately set out in a written statement to this House how the Government intend to respond to the budgetary issues that have arisen in Northern Ireland. I do not intend to go into the detail of the budget now, but right hon. and hon. Members will see from the written statement just how difficult the fiscal situation in Northern Ireland is at present. The Government will be bringing forward a separate budget Bill in which more detail will be provided, and no doubt this House will want to consider that Bill particularly carefully.

Colum Eastwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that New Decade, New Approach contains many commitments, such as funding the Northlands Addiction Treatment Centre, the Magee university expansion and the Brandywell stadium—all in my constituency—and that in this new context they should not be seen as controversial but should be able to get funded even though we do not have Ministers in the Executive?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I believe I have just laid a written ministerial statement to give an update on how the Government are delivering on the commitments in the New Decade, New Approach paper. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that all these things can happen simultaneously or separately and at different speeds, and have done, but there is also a fundamental issue, which was noted at that time, with the protocol. This Bill, though, is about creating the conditions in which  key decisions in Northern Ireland can be taken, including on the implementation of the budget, rather than the content of the budget that I was describing before the intervention.
I will briefly summarise the overall intention of the Bill before running through its provisions. At the outset, though, I must say that I am grateful to those on the Opposition Benches—all of them—for their co-operation in moving this Bill forward. Specifically, though I know I should perhaps save this for Third Reading, I thank the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), for the constructive and cross-party fashion in which he and others on the Opposition Front Bench have approached this Bill, both in this place and the other place. I am also grateful to him for speaking to me on this important Bill over the weekend and for speaking to my hon. Friend the Minister of State yesterday evening.
The Bill broadly seeks to do three main things. It retrospectively extends the period of Executive formation for two six-week periods. That means, subject to the agreement of this House and the other place, that if an Executive is not formed within those timeframes, the election duty placed on me will kick in after the second extension of six weeks, on 20 January 2023.

Stephen Farry: I ask the Secretary of State to reflect on the disjoint between the timetable he is setting out today for restoration of the Executive and the current pace of negotiations with the European Union. Does he not recognise the need for him to build in some further flexibility, to avoid a situation where he has to call an election at a time when the negotiations are coming to a conclusion and potentially inside that tunnel, given that an election may be very prejudicial to securing a stable outcome and to getting the necessary compromise so that Northern Ireland can move forward?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for his message to me on the subject earlier. I completely understand the point he makes, but I am hopeful that we can do the work that needs to be done within the timeframe that we are setting down now.
Returning to the Bill, the second main thing it does is to clarify the decisions that civil servants in Northern Ireland Departments can take in the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers, so that decisions in crucial areas such as public sector spending and the maintenance of public services can continue to be taken in the absence of an Executive.

Maria Miller: My right hon. Friend talked about the importance of public services; many of us in this House have been talking in particular about the provision of abortion services in Northern Ireland, which the Government made a very helpful statement on last month. Can he update the House on how those services are being put in place? Many want to ensure that the legislation we passed here about two years ago will lead to an improvement in provision for women in Northern Ireland.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I can give a brief update. Indeed the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) tabled  amendments on that matter earlier, so I believe she might want to come in at this point, and then I should be able to answer.

Stella Creasy: It is now 1,134 days since this House passed the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 and 973 days since the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020 were laid to give effect to it. Women in Northern Ireland have been waiting patiently for safe, legal and local abortion services. Can the Secretary of State tell us how many more days he thinks it is acceptable to ask them to wait, now that he has the powers and the money to deliver those services? Would 90 days be enough, for example?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank both the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for their questions. I can give some clarity on this now, and later the Minister of State will be able to give a bit more detail. My officials have been working closely with the Northern Ireland Department of Health and I have instructed the permanent secretary to commission abortion services in Northern Ireland. I am also ensuring that the required funding is allocated for those services, and funding will be ring-fenced in the Northern Ireland budget, as set out by my written ministerial statement of last week.
That will mean that, in line with my statutory duty, health and social care trusts will have both the assurance of commissioned service and the guarantee of funding for that service, allowing them to recruit and plan for the full roll-out of services that this House decided women should have access to. The hon. Member for Walthamstow asked about dates. This is a service that is sometimes controversial, but also unbelievably important, and appropriate recruitment and training of staff needs to take place. Her amendment, which I know is a probing amendment, mentions 28 days, but I hope I can demonstrate to her that recruitment is already starting and training is going to start.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the period of 90 days. I would like to think that most services will be at least en route to being delivered by that point in time, but, if I may, I intend to write to those hon. Members who might be interested, maybe on a monthly basis, to give continual updates so that the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke can see what is happening and when.

Carla Lockhart: The Secretary of State will be aware that since the introduction of the new legislation to Northern Ireland, more than 4,000 babies have been aborted in the womb. That is 4,000 lives lost—a stark difference from the 100,000 who are alive today because of the life-affirming laws that we have. He will be aware that 79% of people opposed that legislation. This is being forced on the people of Northern Ireland against their will, and yet he can find funding for it and not for other important things in Northern Ireland.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The hon. Lady and I have had this conversation before. I have a statutory duty to deliver that service and I will do so.
Lastly, the Bill provides for powers around the remuneration of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, meaning that I will be able to take action to amend their pay when they are unable to conduct the  full range of the functions expected of them. The Bill also provides for a number of other measures, including on the regional rate and public appointments, that I will speak to shortly.
Taken together, the measures in the Bill will help to plug the governance gap that has emerged in Northern Ireland. We recognise that the Bill is a stopgap and is not intended to be a long-term solution to the issues that Northern Ireland faces; that is a matter for locally elected politicians.
I will now go through the clauses in turn to explain the Government’s rationale behind some of the policy choices we have made in this process. Clause 1 makes provision for an extension of the period for filling ministerial offices, as set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and amended by the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022—cannily nicknamed “MEPOC”. The clause retrospectively introduces a further six-week period during which an Executive can be formed. That means that the election duty previously placed on me from 28 October no longer applies and, through the Bill, would not apply again until 9 December 2022 at the earliest.
Clause 2 provides for a power to extend the Executive formation period by a further six weeks to 19 January 2023. That power is exercisable through a statutory instrument. I will just say a brief word about that, as I know that it is not necessarily conventional. The regulations made under clause 2 will not be subject to any parliamentary procedure— other than having to be laid after they are made—on the basis that the power is limited and exercisable only once. It is not a recurring power that allows me to extend the period for Executive formation indefinitely, but rather a very tightly drawn single further extension to a defined date.
All taken, the Government judge that this extension will afford political parties in Northern Ireland the time they need to get around the negotiating table, back to the Assembly and into the Executive. I have listened clearly and carefully to party leaders, who have all said publicly that now is not the time for a further Assembly election, and I have acted on those concerns. Right hon. and hon. Members with eagle eyes will note that the clause does not fully replicate previous legislation in that it does not provide for the extension or restoration of caretaker Ministers. The Government considered that, but we have come to the firm view that it would not have been appropriate to restore Ministers who left office on 28 October, even in a caretaker capacity. Instead, civil servants have been holding the tiller in Northern Ireland Departments since that date. They have done so admirably given the circumstances under which they have been working.
That brings me neatly to clauses 3 to 5, which clarify the decisions that Northern Ireland civil servants can take in the continued absence of an Executive. The Government have broadly mirrored the approach to these powers taken by the previous Administration but one in 2018, largely replicating the relevant provisions in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018. We recognise that precedent is helpful both to Parliament and to decision-makers themselves. Northern Ireland civil servants will therefore be provided with the certainty to take a limited  set of decisions when it is in the public interest to do so. That will enable them to address key issues facing Northern Ireland right now: a sustainable budget, the cost of living and—importantly—the delivery of public services.

Chris Clarkson: Conservatives believe that work should pay and that those who choose not to work should not be as well off. We are now hearing that civil servants will have to discharge some ministerial functions. The Secretary of State mentioned that he will have the power to vary the pay of MLAs. It will stick in lots of people’s throats that, during a cost of living crisis, MLAs are receiving full wages for doing half a job. Will he look at that urgently?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I absolutely will. Indeed, depending on the passage of the Bill through this House and the other place, when the power falls to me, I intend to act on it rapidly. I am fully aware that it is a heartfelt plea from the people of Northern Ireland that their politicians should be active in the Assembly and working on these issues—people are quite cross that they are not.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Is the Secretary of State equally deeply angry about those abstentionist MPs from Northern Ireland who get allowances and run offices but do not take their seats in this House, and is he prepared to take immediate action and amend his own activities today by removing those allowances? Will he be consistent on that matter?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The hon. Gentleman will be talking about Sinn Féin Members of Parliament. I guess I would compare their take-home pay, allowances and everything with his—it would not be the same. I am just essentially taking the same principle and using it in a slightly different way.
We do not, I am afraid, have the luxury of waiting for a restored Executive to take these key decisions. That is why it is right that we give civil servants the legal cover to keep things moving. To aid them in doing that, I will shortly publish draft guidance on taking decisions in the public interest and on the principles that should be taken into account in deciding whether or not to do so. Again, that mirrors the approach that was taken previously in 2018. Final guidance will be published after Royal Assent. We recognise, though, that this is not a long-term solution, and civil servants cannot be left to take decisions indefinitely. That is why these provisions will last for six months or until an Executive reforms—whichever is sooner.
Clauses 6 to 9 make provision for certain public appointments that would usually have to be made by, or require their approval of, Ministers. That largely mirrors provision made in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018. This is another sensible step and will ensure that key appointments, which are necessary to maintain governance and public confidence in the institutions in Northern Ireland, can still be made.
Clause 10 will allow me to do something that has just been mentioned: take action when it comes to the pay of Members of the Assembly—or MLAs, as they are usually known. At a time when taxpayers’ money, and indeed taxpayers themselves, are under enormous strain,  it is simply not acceptable that MLAs continue to draw a full salary while unable to conduct the full range of functions for which they were elected. The clause will therefore allow me to amend the pay of MLAs in this and any future periods of inactivity, drawing on sections 47 and 48 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Simon Hoare: Clearly, the vast majority of MLAs want Stormont up and running. They want to do 100% of their jobs seven days a week, rather than the 50% that they are able to do at the moment. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he has robustly explored employment law—and if he has not, that he will do so—and that it would allow only for those who refuse to attend to have a pay cut? Those who wished to attend but could not because somebody was exercising their veto should not see their income reduced through no fault of their own.

Gregory Campbell: Like Sinn Féin did four years ago.

Simon Hoare: Precisely—I agree.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Amid the interesting debate that is going on across my shoulder, I can honestly say to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), that I have sought and received lots of advice on that very issue. It is judged that, legally, I would be in a very safe place to do exactly as I am doing, but to differentiate would put us into a different place whereby I could be legally challenged or, potentially, legally challenged.

Simon Hoare: As many Members have said, the Secretary of State is being very generous with his time. He said that he would run the risk of being judicially reviewed. All Ministers of the Crown in this place run that risk. May I urge him to think again, because the risk would be worth it given the situation we are in?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I think I might arrange for my hon. Friend a meeting with my Department’s lawyers, who will happily take him through the issues, the various risks that they are running at this point in time, and the number of cases that we have.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I assure the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that if he has his way, and believes that that will make any difference whatever to the principled stand that my party is taking based on the mandate we were given in the Assembly election, he is gravely mistaken.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I seem to be in the middle of an argument between two great gentlemen of this House, so I will just tactfully duck and continue with my contribution, because I know that people would like me to move on.
Any determination made by me once the provisions come into force will, I anticipate, take into account the independent analysis produced in the previous political impasse. Again, there is precedent for these powers—the Government took similar action in 2018 to deliver recommendations produced by that analysis.
However, there is an important difference that the House should note: I will retain the power to set MLA pay in future instances where the Assembly is unable to elect a Speaker and deputies following an election. The power would then snap back to the current arrangement when those roles are filled, the Assembly can conduct business and MLAs are fulfilling the full range of functions expected of them. That will mean the Government do not need to return to the House on this matter if the institutions cease to function in the future, which, of course, I hope will not be the case.

Julian Smith: It is worth confirming to the House that all MLAs, from whatever party—even if some of those parties do not want to be part of the Executive—are working on their constituency work, which is difficult and particularly busy at the moment. We have the biggest and most diverse set of MLAs in the Assembly’s history, and it is worth speaking up for that group.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my right hon. Friend, the former Secretary of State for doing exactly that. I am fully aware that MLAs, whatever their political stance or party, do good work in their constituencies, which is why the approach I have set out today is the one I hope to take. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, the Chair of the Select Committee, who has tabled a number of amendments on MLA pay that seek to strengthen provisions in the Bill. I know that he has spoken to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), and I am sure there will be a bit more of this debate in Committee.
Finally, I draw the House’s attention to a few other provisions in the Bill. Clause 11 confers on me a power to set through regulations the regional domestic and non-domestic rate in Northern Ireland for the financial year ending 31 March 2024. Those rates must be set for every financial year. The regional rate is normally set by the Northern Ireland Department of Finance by way of affirmative order in the Northern Ireland Assembly and comprises rates charged to domestic and non-domestic properties in Northern Ireland. In the continued absence of an Assembly and Executive, this power is an insurance policy where there is continued stasis after a further election, and it will allow the UK Government to set these rates as required. Clauses 12 to 15 are minor and consequential.
No Northern Ireland Secretary would want to introduce a Bill of this nature. As we approach the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, we should be celebrating the progress that Northern Ireland has made since that historic agreement, which is undeniably substantial. As I said in my statement to Parliament, this Government will always seek to implement, maintain and protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. This Bill will help to do that, providing short-term cover to plug the governance gap in Northern Ireland, but it is not a long-term solution to the issues with which Northern Ireland is grappling. Those are for a newly reconstituted Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly to solve.

Laurence Robertson: My right hon. Friend is right to introduce this Bill, which I am happy to support, but with the time that he is buying with the Bill, will he make sure that the Northern  Ireland Protocol Bill is taken through the Lords rather more quickly than it is presently? That will give him strength in the negotiations with the European Union and then we can get the whole matter sorted properly.

Chris Heaton-Harris: In my former role as Government Chief Whip, this place having any sway over what happened at the other end of the building would have been a pleasurable occurrence. I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance, but I can assure him that a huge amount of work is going on in that area.
The people of Northern Ireland want their elected representatives to get round the table again and get back to power-sharing. I hope the measures in this Bill go some way to providing the space and time for that to happen, but if the Executive and Assembly are to return, it will require the determination, creativity and compromise of those who hold the keys. I know they are up to the task, but for now I commend this Bill to the House.

Peter Kyle: I thank the Secretary of State for setting out the measures in the Bill. I was clear when he introduced it that we would not oppose this legislation.
There is sufficient consensus in Northern Ireland and outside it that elections this winter will not help to break the political deadlock. In many ways, this emergency legislation is the least worst of the options open to the Secretary of State. I emphasise again that Northern Ireland is a valued part of the United Kingdom, and restoring power-sharing should be one of the top priorities of No. 10. The longer the Executive are collapsed, the hollower the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement next year will be. Power sharing is the essential and hard-won outcome of that agreement. It is incumbent on the UK Government and the European Union to engage with the concerns of the Unionist community that led to its withdrawal from the institutions. Equally, any solution that emerges must be acceptable to the nationalist community to allow power sharing to resume.
There is also a growing part of Northern Ireland’s population that identifies as neither nationalist nor Unionist. In May, the cross-community Alliance party achieved its best ever results in the Assembly election. Balancing these relationships is the nature of the UK Government’s role as the honest broker for Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland deserves. I was encouraged to hear that the Secretary of State made the decision to delay elections after, in his own words,
“engaging widely in Northern Ireland with the parties, with businesses, with community representatives and with members of the public. I have also spoken with other international interlocutors.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 278.]
The need to mark a new chapter in how the Government deal with Northern Ireland is profound, and I hope this marks that point.
To date, there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland, which is perfectly illustrated by two Bills affecting Northern Ireland that are going through Parliament at this moment. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill has as its central  justification the lost consent of one community for the protocol. The second, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, not only has no consent of any community, but is actively opposed by all communities, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and every single victims group, yet the Government obstinately plough on. This Government care about the concerns of Northern Ireland when it suits their needs, but sadly overlook them when it does not. That is a recipe for dysfunction, and dysfunction is what has been delivered.
Labour will always take a constructive approach to Northern Ireland, and one way of trying to make progress would be for the Prime Minister to step in and use his great office. Tony Blair’s first visit outside of London as Prime Minister was to Belfast. He visited five times in his first year as Premier. He did it to show commitment to Northern Ireland. It is revealing that the current Prime Minister has not yet made the short trip himself since he came to power, but in that time has managed to go to Egypt and Indonesia.

Steven Baker: He went to the conference in Blackpool.

Peter Kyle: The shadow—sorry, the soon to be shadow Minister intervenes to point out that the Prime Minister went to the conference in Blackpool, which he did, and we are very grateful for it. I hope that he will soon make time to go to Northern Ireland himself and perhaps use the power of his office to convene multi-party talks and get some progress over there. This matters, because it was a Conservative Prime Minister who personally championed, negotiated and signed the protocol into international treaty. It is not unreasonable to expect it to take a similar level of involvement to change it.
The Bill before us allows the Secretary of State to delay elections, but it does not explain how the Government will use the extra time they are buying themselves. The first deadline in the Bill for restoring the Executive is 8 December. That is next week. It is unclear how the Government have used the period from 28 October to 8 December to find solutions to restore the Executive. Sadly, I can go back even further and say that it is not clear how the Government have used the entire six months since the Assembly elections. For months the Executive have been collapsed, and there was no visit from the Tory Prime Minister and no multi-party talks in Downing Street. There was not even a statement to Parliament. I would like to think that, had the current Secretary of State been in place back then, he would have done so, because he has respected the House by giving multiple statements since, for which I am grateful. It is a shame that there was no such similar action in that period.
The most recent update on the Northern Ireland protocol negotiations came from the Foreign Secretary during his appearance at the European Scrutiny Committee on 15 November. He said:
“I do not want people to be defeatist, but I also do not want people to run away with the idea that we are just on the cusp of some amazing breakthrough”.
He went on to say that he wanted to “manage expectations.” The Bill gives the Northern Ireland Secretary the power to extend the deadline by a further six weeks to 19 January, but no further. It is not clear whether the Foreign Secretary is bluffing or the deadlines in the Bill are too short.
That matters, because over the next few months, the Government have built up hopes that a deal is imminent. The delegated powers memorandum says of the decision by the Secretary of State:
“Parliament will have an opportunity during the passage of the Bill to scrutinise fully his likely decision and the basis on which he will make it. Any decision he takes will necessarily have to be made very shortly afterwards.”
I hope that when he responds to the debate the Minister is crystal clear on this. He must explain what progress has been made to reach a negotiated solution on the protocol and on restoring the Executive.
Other powers that the Secretary of State gains through the Bill include the ability to make public appointments, cut Assembly Members’ pay and set regional rates. We have been assured that the clauses relating to those measures are all based on previous legislation. Public appointments and rate setting are necessary powers for practical reasons. I hope that Members all agree with the need for the appointment of a Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People and of commissioners for the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. Setting regional rates will provide businesses with certainty. It is also fine to cut Assembly Members’ pay, as that has been done before. Northern Ireland is suffering more from the cost of living crisis than any other part of the country, so I understand why residents would want that part of the Bill to be introduced.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I want to give the hon. Gentleman time to outline issues that have alarmed him. Does what has happened in the criminal courts in Dublin, including the Hutch criminal gang trial, create or provoke alarm in the Labour party? He will recall that, historically, whenever the IRA was involved in a major bank robbery, such  as the Northern Bank robbery, and whenever its activists colluded with FARC guerrillas, that brought political institutions to a shuddering halt. Does he believe that the implications of what has been revealed in the Hutch criminal gang trial will have another shuddering impact on political activity?

Peter Kyle: The hon. Gentleman raises extremely serious issues, which relate to the Republic of Ireland and an ongoing trial. I watch that trial closely and await its outcome. I do not think that it would be appropriate at this point to comment on a trial that is under way, but I am grateful for his intervention.
Significantly, the Bill gives civil servants greater decision-making powers to allow public services to function. These decisions will be based on guidance issued by the Secretary of State. However, we should be aware that we are asking a lot of civil servants. Yesterday, Jayne Brady, head of the Northern Ireland civil service, gave an interview in which she said:
“We are in a period of keeping the system running, compounded by a requirement to make savings. But equally we won’t be moving and addressing those big systemic issues. That is why it is so important that we get the Executive up and running.”
I want to pay tribute to civil servants, who will undoubtedly do their best in the challenging weeks that lie ahead, but the big systemic issues require political leadership and political decision making.
Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting beautiful Enniskillen, where I witnessed first hand some of those acute challenges. In the local hospital, I saw outstanding  facilities that are going unused because of the struggle to recruit the clinicians needed to keep services going. I spoke to nurses whose pay deals have been agreed by Ministers but are blocked by the absence of an Executive. Once again, nurses’ pay in Northern Ireland has diverged from pay in other parts of the United Kingdom. Those nurses are essential in tackling the longest waiting lists in the UK. Those issues need to be resolved, and they need to be resolved quickly.
I also want to put on record my thanks to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, whose officers have had to deal with recent attempts on their lives by terrorists. It is worrying that in these times there has been a partial freeze on the recruitment of new officers due to the lack of a budget. Northern Ireland needs a restored Executive so that decisions in such crucial areas can be made locally, instead of here in Westminster. The Government must use the extra time that the Bill gives them to make concrete progress. After months of uncertainty and neglect, it is the very least that people of Northern Ireland deserve.

Simon Hoare: It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). May I begin by thanking Government Ministers, particularly my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his officials for many briefings and conversations that he has facilitated for the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and for me personally? That really is appreciated. There are rumours of a bromance breaking out between my hon. Friend and me, but it is nice that we are working together so closely.
Many, if not all, Members of Parliament—I would probably say all Members and everyone in the country at large—would wish the doing of politics to be normalised in Northern Ireland, which is an integral part of the United Kingdom, yet here we are again, having to deal with pressing matters through the use of emergency legislation. That is a real sadness, and I contend that such a situation would not be tolerated in any other part of the UK. At some point, we have to try to find a focused way of trying to deliver normalised politics.
I fear—and I understand precisely why the Secretary of State and the Government have introduced the Bill, which has my full support—that we are falling into a trap. The functioning and delivery of devolution, and the changes that many people would like to see delivered to the protocol, are two distinct, divorced and separate workstreams. We should not stand idly by and allow their conflation in the minds of people across the country. In 2022, no party worthy of that name, against the pressing economic backdrop that we face, should ever have a right to veto or walk away at any time, as I said earlier, still less now. I listened to the intervention from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, about whether or not the reduction of pay was intended to drive, cajole or whip his party back to Stormont. I do not see it that way, but it is the clearest signal possible to members of the public that Parliament gets it and understands what full public service is. If people decide to exercise the veto which currently exists, clearly there should be an opportunity to deliver better value to the taxpayer by reducing the remuneration package. I have always been keen and hot on that, and I  hope that the Secretary of State exercises that power under clause 10, which uses the word “may”. However, I very much hope that he does.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said in recent weeks about the process or impetus that could spur a review of the rubric on which we base the formulation and establishment of the Executive. I paraphrase, but he has said in terms that he would respond if there were overtures from the parties in Northern Ireland, from the grassroots up. That is probably the right approach, and I urge my right hon. Friend—he probably needs no urging—should those overtures be made, to respond positively to try to address them as quickly as possible.
Clause 10 says that the Secretary of State “may” make a determination; I think that he has to and that it should be done speedily. I know that many people wish that the law allowed him to differentiate between the MLAs who want to be in Stormont doing their job and those who have decided not to for reasons that are perfectly respectable. As we all know, however, any decisions that we take do and must have consequences.

Gregory Campbell: The Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee alludes to differentiating between MLAs who want to do their job and those who do not. Does he make the same differentiation between MPs who want to do their job and those who do not, but still get remunerated?

Simon Hoare: Yes, I do. At the end of the day, irrespective of which forum people are working in, that is taxpayers’ money. If one is prepared to do only a portion of the job, there should be implications for that. A teacher could not say, “I’m only going to teach boys called George or girls called Helen, and everybody else can go hang,” and expect the full package of remuneration and all the benefits. Likewise—again, I am grateful for the Minister of State’s briefing—I wish that clause 10(5) were not in the Bill, although I understand the complexities, because there should be knock-on implications for pensions as well. That needs to be looked at in due course.
This is a regrettable but understandable Bill. As the Secretary of State said, no Secretary of State would want to introduce this kind of legislation. Next year is the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—we say that so flippantly; it has been hard-baked into our DNA as if it has always been there. As well as providing a moment for celebration and looking to the future, that provides us with an opportunity to look to the past and what led to its creation. We must never take its benefits for granted. Is it perfect? No. Does it deliver the process that we had hoped for at the speed that we had intended? Of course not, but let us not take it for granted. Let us all put our shoulders to the wheel to make sure that, across the communities, we can celebrate the huge strides for peace that it presented.

Richard Thomson: As I said in response to the Secretary of State’s statement on 9 November, my party has made clear its view that the best place for Members of the Legislative Assembly to be, and where we believe that the overwhelming majority of people in  Northern Ireland would expect them to be, is at work in Stormont holding a functioning Executive to account as they get on with overseeing the delivery of vital public services. As I also said, and still firmly believe, although it certainly does not serve the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland for an Executive not to be in place, it would also not serve their interests to hold another election at this point that would further embed already entrenched positions. We therefore welcome the Bill as a means of postponing an election that nobody wants and that would serve no purpose, and as a means of allowing the essential functions of Government to proceed in the interim, pending, we hope, the formation of an Executive.
Northern Ireland has, of course, been in the unfortunate position of both its Governments being paralysed by inaction in the last few months, albeit for different reasons. We hope that the Bill will allow for some long-overdue negotiations to take place about amending the terms on which the UK Government chose to leave the EU. We are all clear about why we are here, and that sits at the back of it, because that is what led the DUP to refuse to form an Administration based on the Northern Ireland protocol, which it considers to represent the undermining of Northern Ireland’s place in the Union.
We are clear, as other hon. Members have been in previous debates on the subject, that the protocol was not anybody’s favoured option. It was certainly not the Scottish National party’s preferred way; we saw considerable advantages in remaining aligned with the single market and the customs union, which would have meant that these problems simply did not arise. The protocol was, however, an unloved solution to protect the people of Northern Ireland from the consequences of the form of Brexit that was chosen by the UK Government in line with their negotiating objectives at the time.
Things froze at that point, but I was pleased to note at the British-Irish Association conference in Oxford that some fruitful discussions appeared to happen behind the scenes that started to melt some of that ice. Some of the Minister of State’s public reflections and observations on how we have got to where we are have been particularly helpful in re-establishing a basis for discussions. We welcome that and wish the UK Government well in their attempts to renegotiate the protocol; we have never at any point criticised them for having that objective, but it is now time to get on and do it.
I certainly understand the desire to dock MLA salaries, but it seems to be little more than a gesture. It is not going to provide the motive force that puts anyone back to work, because we can all see the political issues at the back of this. It might be more productive if Ministers proposed an amendment to their own salaries if they are unable to negotiate a suitable agreement within the time they have now allowed themselves. [Interruption.] That seems to have started a discussion; I will let it rattle around and see where it ends up.
Our views on Brexit and the diminished position it has left not just Scotland but all parts of the UK in are unchanged, but any new settlement on the protocol cannot only be about Northern Ireland: a revised settlement will only be a better one if it resolves issues in trade both between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and between the UK and the European Union. In that regard, while supporting this Bill, we urge the UK Government to move at pace.

Julian Smith: I support this proposed legislation. We had the bandages in New Decade, New Approach of keeping Ministers in place after the Executive fell, and we are now on to the elastoplast. It is worth stressing the limited nature of this Bill. There are very difficult choices that civil servants in Northern Ireland are not able to take. There are big challenges in all sorts of areas, including health, with long waiting lists; education, with hundreds of millions of pounds going in the wrong direction on the budget; foreign direct investment, where Northern Ireland has a great reputation but not having Ministers has an impact; and community groups and other organisations, which are desperate for political direction.
It is worth stressing to the House that there is the current period of not having an Executive, but there have also been other periods. One party is getting a lot of heat this time, but there were other parties involved in the past, and the implication in Northern Ireland when this happens is severe: if we did not have Westminster and instead just had civil servants in Whitehall taking the decisions, people in England, Wales and Scotland would be up in arms. So I want to emphasise that the implications of not having political decision making in Northern Ireland are very significant.
We have heard a lot about restoring the Executive. I was lucky enough to work with Northern Ireland parties in 2019-20 to restore the Executive then, and I took huge inspiration from the quality of politicians in Northern Ireland and the constructiveness and good will there at that time despite strong crosswinds. There are attempts to think about ways to run a negotiation to restore the Executive separately from the issue of the protocol, but that ship has sailed, because for one group and community in Northern Ireland fixing the protocol is key to the Executive getting back up and running. I have had strong views on how we have got here, on how previous Prime Ministers have handled this and on other routes that could have been taken, but the polling shows there is strong support for the Democratic Unionist party position among a big chunk of citizens in Northern Ireland.
We have heard that the new Prime Minister went to Blackpool, and I think he has developed new trust and new connections, and restored connections with Ireland, France and other European countries. In my view, however, we are now at a point where we really need to appeal to the EU to think again about how it is viewing this negotiation. There is some frustration—well, huge frustration—particularly about how the Conservative party has conducted these negotiations over the past couple of years, and I suspect that many of those complaints are correct, but we now need this.
We now need the EU to look back at what it did in Northern Ireland. It set up a taskforce, with multiple reports and multiple streams of investment. It invested in the Peace bridge in Derry, and it invested in the Peace Plus initiative. It had the widest set of co-ordinated activity in the European Commission on this particular vulnerable part of the EU. It thought very carefully and worked very hard to bring stability to Northern Ireland, and we now have one community that needs change to happen to get back to the restored settlement that is such a key part of the GFA.
My appeal to the EU is to think again about how it is going about this. Northern Ireland deals, in my experience, are not great on lots of legal detail, lots of bold paragraphs and lots of black and white. Instead, they are really based on compromise, fudge and flexibility. Whether it is two lanes, two approaches or different approaches to EU goods and NI goods, whether it is providing options to businesses in Northern Ireland about regulatory rules, or whether it is taking the European Court of Justice away from the very front of this deal to some distance in the background, all these things are achievable.
Those are all things on which the EU has recognised the uniqueness of Northern Ireland, with the very limited impact its trade and the risk at the border have on the single market. In this 25th year of the GFA, one community needs these changes to take place. We have a Prime Minister who is really trying to reset this relationship, and we now need to go for it. We now need to really encourage the EU to think about this differently and to work intensively at a political level to resolve this, because it is only through the resetting of the protocol situation that my colleagues in the DUP will come forward and restore the Executive. We can debate all we want whether that is good, and whether they are right or wrong, but that is the situation.
In any negotiation, one has to identify the realities, and the reality is that we need significant reform of the protocol at every level, with the EU leaning in on why that is so important. At a time of all this conflict across the broader European continent, it would be a tragedy should the EU not be flexible on the best possible success story in Northern Ireland. I realise this is a debate about Executive formation, but Executive formation in Northern Ireland comes from protocol renegotiation, and protocol renegotiation comes from the EU having some amnesia about its views on the Conservative party position on Brexit and moving forward in the best interests of the citizens of Northern Ireland.

Nigel Evans: I call the leader of the DUP.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith). We fondly recall his facilitation of the talks immediately after the general election in 2019 and the New Decade, New Approach agreement that opened the door for the restoration of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, and we thank him for his continuing interest.
I recognise that the Secretary of State is mandated by legislation to bring forward the Bill, and I think that neither he nor I want to be in this position. Let me be clear that the Democratic Unionist party wants to be back in a functioning Executive. It wants to be dealing with the issues that matter to our constituents. Our MLAs stood for election in May, and they sought a mandate from the people of Northern Ireland. That mandate was clear. I sat in TV studios in Belfast, I sat in radio studios in Belfast and I was interviewed by the print media in Belfast and made it absolutely clear that we would not nominate Ministers to an Executive until decisive action had been taken to address the difficulties created by the Northern Ireland protocol. There was no ambiguity on the part of my party about where it stood and the mandate that it sought.
I say gently to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that he may wish to punish us because we sought a mandate from the people for the stance that we are now taking, but I would like to see him, as Chair of the Committee, adopting a more conciliatory approach, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) did, which recognises the very serious concerns that Unionists have about the protocol. I am not prepared to nominate Ministers to an Executive where a Unionist Minister is required to implement a protocol that every day harms our place in the United Kingdom. It vexes me that the hon. Member for North Dorset does not get that. He does not understand it and has not sought to understand it. In my time as party leader, he and I have not had an honest conversation with each other about this issue. I would welcome the opportunity to explain to him why it is important to my party that it is resolved.
When I was elected leader of the DUP, I set out very clearly on 1 July 2021 the course of action that we would take. The Government published their Command Paper in July 2021. We welcomed the commitments that the Government gave in that Command Paper to address the real problems that the protocol has created. On the foot of that Command Paper, I outlined seven tests based on the commitments made by the Government of the United Kingdom—they were not tests that I had created—to address the problems with the protocol. That, again, was in July/August 2021.
In September last year, I again warned that if the Government and the EU were not able to agree on measures to resolve the problems created by the protocol, there would come a moment when it would no longer be tenable for my party to remain in an Executive. Why is that the case? In the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which was the basis on which devolution was restored, a number of commitments were made by all parties to that agreement. It is a fact that the one single remaining issue that has not been resolved, and which is a commitment by the UK Government in New Decade, New Approach, is restoring Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market. That commitment has not been delivered. That was made at the beginning of 2020 and we are now almost at the end of 2022, almost three years after we received that commitment from the Government, and it has not been delivered.
I welcome the publication of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. I believe that that Bill takes us in strides towards achieving the objective of restoring Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market, but it has not been delivered. The Bill is now sitting in the House of Lords, and we do not have a date for when Report will occur in the other place. We do not know what the timetable is for the Bill eventually gaining Royal Assent. It is and remains an outstanding commitment by the UK Government that has not been delivered, and that was the basis on which my party signed up to New Decade, New Approach.
Notwithstanding that, all the other main commitments are being delivered, including recently the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill, which was a key commitment made by the UK Government—and, I accept, others—in that agreement. That has been delivered,  notably before the proposed date of the Assembly election. The Secretary of State has now quite rightly extended that date, because an election at this stage will not solve the problem.
That is what we are looking for: a solution. That is what we need. I say—again, respectfully—to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that it would be good to hear him talk about solutions, rather than focusing on punishing people who have a real problem with the protocol and who have a mandate from the people who voted for them to take the stand that they are now taking.

Jim Shannon: On that point, that mandate was created in May of this year—a very clear mandate for the DUP to be the largest Unionist party. Since then, the opinion polls in Northern Ireland have shown a greater mandate for our party, because more and more people of the Unionist tradition and across Northern Ireland see the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill as the solution that will sort this matter out. If that does not happen, everyone in this House has to be aware that opinions are hardening, especially on the Unionist side, and they cannot be ignored.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon: although the Government have not yet been able to deliver on their commitment to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market, the biggest culprit in all of this is the European Union. The European Union was formed and founded on the basis that developing consensus in Europe was preferable in order to avoid conflict—that was its original concept. Two terrible world wars had absolutely destroyed Europe, with millions of lives lost, and there was a genuine desire on the part of many European leaders to develop a basis for working and co-existing together through consensus to avoid conflict.
The principle of consensus is central to this discussion. Since 1972 and the collapse of the then Northern Ireland Government, every single Government in this House have made clear that power can only be devolved to institutions in Northern Ireland on the basis of power sharing—a cross-community consensus. I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly during the mandate from 1982 to 1986, and the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) will recall that the SDLP refused to take their seats in that Assembly. They did so on the basis that they would not enter any devolved legislature in Northern Ireland unless an agreement had been established on the basis of power sharing. That has been the case ever since: it is accepted that in a divided society such as Northern Ireland, only a cross-community consensus offers the basis for stable government. After the Good Friday or Belfast agreement, we worked hard from 1998 until 2007 to create the conditions in which that stable, cross-community, consensus-style government could be delivered, and it was created. For 10 years, from 2007 to 2017, we had a stable devolved Government in Northern Ireland, which then collapsed in 2017 when Sinn Féin withdrew.
It concerns me when people talk about the need to normalise politics in Northern Ireland—what does that mean? Does it mean majority rule? Does it mean excluding one section of the community? That fundamentally will  not work, and I say that as a Unionist, part of a tradition that held the majority in Northern Ireland for very many years. Now, as the hon. Member for North Dorset has reminded us, we have three groupings. There is no majority in Northern Ireland, in the sense that although support for the Union remains the position of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly that they vote for belong to three different political groupings: Unionist, nationalist, and other. However, the idea that an Executive can be created that excludes the largest grouping—the Unionists—simply does not wash.
If we are going to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Belfast agreement, we have to accept and recognise that the principle of consensus is the way forward. As the Secretary of State acknowledged, that consensus on the protocol does not exist. On Thursday, I think, the Supreme Court will rule on the case that has been brought in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol. However, the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland have already ruled that the protocol supersedes article 6 of the Act of Union.
Article 6 gives the people of Northern Ireland the right to trade freely with the rest of this United Kingdom. It is the embodiment of the economic Union—this is not just a political Union, but an economic Union—and article 6 says to the citizens of Northern Ireland that they have the right to trade without barriers with the rest of the United Kingdom. As the High Court and the Court of Appeal have confirmed, the protocol creates barriers to trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It subjugates the Act of Union. For us as Unionists, that represents a fundamental change in our constitutional status as part of the United Kingdom, yet we are expected to suck it up and operate political institutions that implement that change—that impose barriers to trade in our country. We are simply meant to accept that that is the way it is, but I am sorry, that is not the way it is. My party will not be in a position where it implements measures that harm our place in the United Kingdom and create barriers to trade with the rest of our country. We will not do that, which is why the protocol needs to be resolved. It affects trade.
I understand that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is proposing a pilot scheme, to be introduced in conjunction with Fujitsu, that would seek to digitise arrangements for checking the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In other words, it would digitise the Irish sea border. Let me absolutely clear: the digitisation of the Irish sea border does not remove it. Tinkering around the edges of the protocol will not resolve the problems that it creates. The EU needs to understand that.
Last week, the Prime Minister spoke with great clarity when he was challenged on a story that appeared in The Sunday Times stating that the UK Government were prepared to consider the Swiss model as a way forward for our trading relationship with the EU. The Prime Minister said that the UK will not be aligning with EU laws. When we met him that evening, I reminded him that not only is Northern Ireland aligned with EU laws, but we are subject to them. Our ability to trade with the rest of our country is subject to legislation over which we have no control and on which we have no say. More than 300 areas of law govern the way we trade with the rest of the United Kingdom and we have no say on them.

Simon Hoare: The right hon. Member referred to digitalisation and Fujitsu. I can recall, as I am sure he can, that many on the DUP Bench kept referring during the passage of various bits of legislation to the evolving nature of IT and digital as a way of providing that light, invisible touch to deliver something. The IT companies have caught up and are providing those solutions, or are certainly evolving them with HMRC, so I do not understand why a digital solution suddenly has to be taken off the table as unacceptable.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I am happy to offer clarity to the Chairman of the Select Committee. If the digitisation is used to check the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and into the European Union, then yes, anything that makes that a smooth operation and provides the EU with the data it needs to satisfy itself that the integrity of the single market is being protected is fine. But why do my constituents need digitisation for the movement of goods that they purchase at a Sainsbury’s supermarket at Sprucefield in my constituency? Sainsbury’s does not have any supermarkets in the Republic of Ireland; there is therefore no risk of those goods travelling into the Republic of Ireland. Why do we need digital technology to monitor the movement of goods from the Sainsbury’s depot in London to the Sainsbury’s store at Sprucefield?

Simon Hoare: I think we all take the point about Sainsbury’s, but may I respectfully say to the right hon. Gentleman that what he says sounds very much like a moving of the goalposts? When he and his party colleagues were advocating invisible, light digital solutions, I paid very keen attention. In all those debates and Select Committee sessions, his party colleagues’ voices were heard, so we all knew the DUP’s position, but I did not hear that distinction being made; it was about a digital solution for everything. It suggests to me that with a digital solution having been on the cusp of delivery, it is now not quite good enough and the goalposts are being moved still further.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I assure the hon. Member that our position has been absolutely consistent. We have said from day one—and this is why we voted against the protocol at the outset—that we do not believe that there should be regulatory barriers on the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland when they are remaining within the UK internal market.
I say to the Chairman of the Select Committee that the New Decade, New Approach agreement is very specific. It talks about restoring Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market. What does that mean? It means that there should not be regulatory barriers to trade on the movement of goods that travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and remain within the United Kingdom. The Democratic Unionist party has never, at any stage, advocated that there should be an Irish sea border on the movement of goods that remain within the UK internal market. That has never been our position.
I simply say to the hon. Member that, yes, I am all for using technology. I have consistently argued that technology can help us where goods are moving through Northern Ireland and into the Republic of Ireland, because that, in essence, is the problem—

Nigel Evans: Order. Interesting and important as this is, let us have a look at the scope of the Bill. Perhaps we can now return to the Bill before the House.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Mr Deputy Speaker, the scope of the Bill is about the government of Northern Ireland. If the government of Northern Ireland cannot function because of the protocol, we need to identify the problems that the protocol is creating.
I say to the Secretary of State and the Government that I think the United Kingdom has been accommodating in its negotiating objectives, as have we. The UK Government and Unionists both accepted from the outset of the debate that there could not be a hard border on the island of Ireland. Let us really think about that for a moment. The United Kingdom accepted, and we accepted, that using the place where customs checks normally take place, which is on the international frontier, would be disruptive to the political process and to the co-operation required to operate the political institutions in Northern Ireland—and what did the European Union do? It pocketed that accommodation and drove for an Irish sea border that it knew full well would have the effect on the Unionist community that a hard border would have on the nationalist community. I say it again: I agree with the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon that the European Union has a responsibility to put right what was done wrong in relation to the protocol.

Karin Smyth: The right hon. Gentleman and I are both members of the EU-UK Parliamentary Assembly, which met recently to highlight our current problems. He and I may disagree on this, but it was the then British Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who actually proposed the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill as a solution to the problem that the Government had got themselves into, and I think we should be laying the blame squarely there.
The issue, as was said in the Parliamentary Assembly and as we all know, is problematic now, but the real problem for future trust is the future relationship. We have still not heard from the UK Government—from one voice in the Conservative party—what sort of realignments, changes and newfound freedoms they want, and that is going to create more problems on the island of Ireland, for all communities. It would be helpful if we could hear from the Government how they see the future relationship operating once we get through the current one. We are not that far apart at the moment, but the fear is that we will be very far apart in the not so distant future.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The hon. Lady has made an important point. Let me say at this stage that I applaud the Government for introducing the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, because somebody had to do something. Somebody had to make the first move, and the Bill has at least brought the European Union to the point at which they are back at the negotiating table, and perhaps adopting a more realistic approach. However, we have yet to see that manifest itself in the form of agreement, and we need to see progress being made.
Why is progress important? Progress is important because coming down the track is a major piece of legislation which will, in my opinion, greatly exacerbate the current difficulty: the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Why will that exacerbate the problem? Because Northern Ireland will be excluded from large swathes of the Bill, as it is not possible to remove EU regulations in Northern Ireland that are linked to the protocol, the changes that will made to law in Great Britain will leave Northern Ireland further behind in terms of regulatory alignment within the UK internal market. This will greatly enhance the divide between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It will lead to regulatory divergence. Therefore time is of the essence, but time is also of the essence because the EU is coming forward with new regulations every week, and those regulations apply to Northern Ireland.
Let me give an important example. The EU is proposing a new regulation on human organs and tissues, which will apply to Northern Ireland but not to Great Britain. What does that mean? It means that unless Great Britain adopts the changes that will be brought about by this new regulation, when Northern Ireland patients are hoping for organ transplants or blood transfusions, special blood products or organs will have to be brought from Great Britain. That presents us with a major problem. Because there will no longer be regulatory alignment between the rules on organ transplants in Great Britain and those in Northern Ireland, there will no longer be regulatory alignment in respect of the use of blood products coming from Great Britain for use in the health service in Northern Ireland. This regulation is coming forward: it has already been the subject of scrutiny by the European Scrutiny Committee in this House.
That is just one small example of how further EU regulation will cause Northern Ireland to diverge further from Great Britain, and will present real and practical issues that are about not just trade, but the health and wellbeing of every single citizen in Northern Ireland.

Julian Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Evans: Order. I will allow this intervention, but I think we have gone way beyond the Bill that is before us. There will be plenty of other opportunities to discuss the issues that you are raising today, Sir Jeffrey. I know that this is vitally important, but there will be many more such opportunities.

Julian Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the EU, on the issue of medicines, did show flexibility this year, and did start to move into the area that we were discussing earlier—the area of compromise and less hard facts? We need more of that in other areas. We should encourage the EU to use the principle that it applied to medicines in these other sectors, and to start to move in that direction.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank the former Secretary of State for making that point, and I agree with him. I think that the point he made in his speech— which I echo—is that what we need now, more than anything, is for the European Union to recognise that consensus in Northern Ireland is essential to restoring the political institutions.
In conclusion, the European Union has stated that the primary reason for the protocol is to protect the integrity of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the political institutions created by that agreement. That is what the European Union has said countless times, yet the reality is that the protocol is harming the agreement. It is harming the consensus that is necessary—nay, essential —to operate the political institutions created under the agreement. We are approaching the 25th anniversary, and a lot has been said about that in the House this afternoon. For the record, we want to see the political institutions restored well before the 25th anniversary. We want to be able to join with all our citizens in Northern Ireland to celebrate 25 years of a relative degree of peace.

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way one last time. I just want to remind him of when he and I sat on the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly just a few weeks ago in Committee Room 14 and talked to the EU about moving forward. He made an impassioned plea, as did I, for the EU to take account of the needs of all the communities in Northern Ireland, and I certainly felt that that was listened to and respected. I feel optimistic about this, and I wonder if he shares that view.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I would like to be optimistic about the European Union changing its negotiating stance, but we have not seen it yet. We are looking for the evidence of it; we want to see it. That is now essential to break the logjam and open up the opportunity for the UK Government and the European Union to reach an agreement on this most pressing of issues. Therefore, we want to see this legislation have an endpoint. We want to see the political institutions restored in Northern Ireland, but let me be absolutely clear: that requires a solution on the protocol and it requires the European Union to accept that the protocol is not working. It is harming the consensus in Northern Ireland and it needs to be replaced by arrangements that respect the integrity of the UK and Northern Ireland’s place within it.

Bob Stewart: Although I am an English MP, I have a huge affection for the people of Northern Ireland. What happens there matters a lot to me because of the three years I spent soldiering in the place. Indeed, I am revisiting the Province this weekend, as Northern Ireland Members know, for the rather sad commemoration of the Ballykelly bombing, which occurred 40 years ago and for which I was the incident commander. Thankfully the bad old days of the past have gone now, and they must never return.
May I at this point commend to the House the continuing dedication, hard work and often gallantry of the Police Service of Northern Ireland? In the past I worked closely with its predecessor, the Royal Ulster Constabulary—especially the special branch—and I have nothing but the greatest of respect and admiration for the men and women who make up its ranks.
It is unfortunate that we have to have this Bill to try to get an Executive formed in Northern Ireland, but that is where we are. It is also essential that we get through this deadlock of democracy in Ulster. Everyone  agrees on that, and the stumbling block to achieving that progress is the protocol. It is certainly stumped at the moment, and people and businesses are really hurting in Northern Ireland. The protocol directly costs people in Northern Ireland. It is totally unfair that my constituents in Beckenham do not have to pay as much money in the supermarket as people in Northern Ireland do because of the protocol.

Claire Hanna: Will the right hon. Gentleman outline where he saw these price differentials? Through my work, I spend half the week in London and half the week in Belfast, and I am not seeing it. I do not think the evidence provided by the retailers is bearing out that assertion. Can he give evidence of the price distortions he says the protocol is causing?

Nigel Evans: Order. I make the same plea: there are plenty of opportunities to talk about these other issues. We have the Bill in front of us, and I think it would be more fruitful if we directed our comments towards that.

Bob Stewart: I will not respond to the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). I have not been to Northern Ireland recently, but I will be there at the weekend and I will buy something in the supermarket.  I have been reprimanded by Mr Deputy Speaker, and I always take a reprimand from the Chair with seriousness.
Northern Ireland must develop and regain its devolved institutions and local decision making, and I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—he is sitting on the Front Bench and paying great attention to everything I say, as he always does—is bending over backwards to try to sort out this problem. There is no doubt about that.
Nobody benefits from the current situation, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s continuing discussion and co-operation with the Irish Government on matters of mutual concern. However, I am somewhat worried by some suggestions that, if an Executive cannot be formed, there could be some form of joint authority over the island of Ireland. That must not even be considered. It is utterly unacceptable and would be a direct attack on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We cannot have that.
Obviously, we all hope that an agreement on changes to the protocol can be agreed in time for the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. To be honest, I have mixed feelings about docking the pay of MLAs because they are apparently not fulfilling all their duties of representation. I accept that, in principle, they might not be doing all their job, but every one of them—DUP included—wants to go back to work. However, I will support the Secretary of State if he decides to take that form of action.
I presume that, unless an Executive is formed by 19 January, new elections in the Province will be inevitable. To stop this, we need the problems of the protocol to be sorted by then. We really have to fix it, because my friends in Northern Ireland do not deserve to go through all this.
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I sit down, having been reprimanded.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: I know I will not need to reprimand Gregory Campbell, because he will focus on the legislation.

Gregory Campbell: It is a privilege to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to follow my esteemed colleague and friend, the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart).
In speaking to the Bill, I will limit my remarks to a small number of areas. The first is the matter of MLAs’ pay, which has been alluded to not only in the Chamber but more widely as a significant contributor to the moving of the Bill. The Secretary of State helpfully introduced the Bill last week. I shall quote from what he told us:
“It is also unacceptable that Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) should continue to receive full remuneration from the public purse when they are not fulfilling their Assembly duties”.
That is the justification for that portion of the Bill.
I presume that if I were to ask the Secretary of State—which I may well—whether his Government are acting with a very even hand in relation to all aspects in Northern Ireland, and whether he wants to ensure that what he applies to one community is applied equally to the other, I would not see him in any way diverting from that. Indeed, I can almost see him nodding in acclamation: that the Government want to treat everyone equally, and that that has been the sum and substance of what he and previous Secretaries of State have said on previous occasions.
If this Government are treating everyone equally in respect of the potential to reduce MLAs’ salaries—on the basis of what the Secretary of State has said in introducing the Bill about it being unacceptable that they should continue to receive full remuneration from the public purse when they are not fulfilling their duties—I trust that he has had some level of conversation with the Leader of the House on the almost reprehensible nature of the fact that there are MPs who do not fulfil their duties in this House. Having done some research and received answers to parliamentary questions I have tabled about representation moneys, I know that they receive funding of not thousands, not tens of thousands, not even hundreds of thousands, but millions of pounds. In the past 10 years, those who do not fulfil their duties as Members of Parliament in this Parliament have received £10 million—ten million pounds—so I trust that, in conjunction with this Bill, the Northern Ireland Office has had conversations with the Leader of the House about wanting to treat everyone equally. I am sure that those conversations have taken place and that they have been along the lines of, “We’re going to introduce this Bill to ensure that MLAs don’t get the full remuneration from the public purse, but you’re going to have to introduce something similar in this House, so that Sinn Féin MPs or anyone else who doesn’t fulfil their duties also don’t receive remuneration from the public purse.”

Chris Heaton-Harris: I am curious as to whether the hon. Gentleman knows that Sinn Féin Members do not receive their parliamentary salaries.

Gregory Campbell: I am well aware of that. The remuneration I am talking about does not include salaries, but it does include all other expenses, including representation moneys, and the total amount in the last 10 years was in excess of £10 million—for not performing their public duties. That is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State, but it is the responsibility of the Leader of the House.

Claire Hanna: Is the hon. Member’s point that he would like the salaries of his party colleagues’ staff stopped as well? That seems to be the logical extension of what he is saying. I think we are all agreed that abstentionists should not receive a salary, but if he is saying that the issue is that there are office costs and other remuneration, is he proposing that they are taken away from MLAs?

Gregory Campbell: I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I think she knows full well that that is not what I am suggesting. I was quoting the exact reference from the Secretary of State in introducing the Bill: “full remuneration from the public purse”. That should apply equally to Sinn Féin’s allowances and representation money. Action should be taken on that. It has been requested and sought for many years. I will leave it there and hope that the Leader of the House will introduce such a change. It would be entirely unacceptable if she were not do so.
We have discussed this Bill on many occasions and also the need to get back into Stormont, which all of us share. My party is a devolutionist party. I have served for many years in various capacities under the devolutionary settlement of Stormont, so I want to see Members back doing their jobs. However, it is a mistake to keep referring to a variety of problems and say that they could be solved if Ministers were back at their desks. Ministers were at their desks when hospital waiting times got worse. The A6 dual carriageway in my constituency is almost finished, but it has been almost finished for a year, and that has been mostly under devolution. Unfortunately, the road remains unfinished. I hope that no one will suggest that we should get back into devolved Government so that the roads can be finished. I hope that no one will suggest that we should get back into Government because the waiting times in various hospitals are getting worse. They were getting worse under devolution. Yes, I want to see devolution work, but let us not create straw men for others to knock down.

Sammy Wilson: Does my hon. Friend also accept that the £670 million hole in the budget occurred when the Executive were sitting and that, this time last year, the Sinn Féin Minister could not get agreement from any party—not one party—in the Assembly to his budget?

Gregory Campbell: Not only is my right hon. Friend right, but the Secretary of State alluded to that. He was extremely critical of the overspend that the devolved Government had achieved. I just think that we should be more circumspect when we talk about getting back into devolved Government. We come back to the point that my good friend the right hon. Member for Beckenham made just before I rose to speak, which was that there is one issue that prevents devolved Government from returning—with all their faults, which must be remedied—and that is the protocol.
Again, I hope that the Secretary of State, the Minister of State or anyone else will not use the other straw man, which is preventing the return of a hard border, because everyone knows that that will not happen. It was never going to happen. It was raised to pressure our Government; that is the reason that it was raised. That is why Leo Varadkar, when he was Taoiseach, threw down the front page of The Irish Times, which showed a border post ablaze in the 1970s, and said to Messrs Macron and Merkel that we cannot go back to that. Our Government took fright and would have agreed to anything rather than this false assertion that violence would return.
A hard border is not on the equation. It will not be implemented. Everyone accepts that that is the case. The Government have to deal with the one thing that prevents us from getting devolved Government back up and running—the one thing that has introduced the Bill that we are discussing today—and that is the protocol. Sort out the protocol and we will get back into government.

Claire Hanna: I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate, but I am disappointed that it is on another Bill that is a manifestation of political failure. It is the latest in the diet of political failure that the people in Northern Ireland have been fed, and attention is rightly on the current abeyance of the institutions. However, the truth is that the stewardship of the Good Friday institutions has been abused for the past decade by partisan positioning. The people who pay the price, time and again, are those who are waiting for health treatment for want of reform of health and for want of workforce planning, the children who are sitting in an inadequate school estate because of delayed development decisions, and the people sitting in the cold and getting sick because of it, waiting for cost of living support payments that reached other regions many months ago.
We should be in absolutely no doubt that, despite the nihilist anti-devolution rhetoric that we have just heard, the responsibility to govern and the refusal of it does have a measurable impact on public services. Nobody is saying that the parties in charge over the past decade have done a particularly good job of running those services, but it is absolutely the case that having no Ministers degrades decision making. We should be in no doubt, either, that the normalisation of crisis politics is wearing people in Northern Ireland down, entrenching division and making our society even sicker.
Anybody listening to the speeches from DUP Members will have had a mind-bending experience. I am going to stick to the scope of the Bill, but I want to clarify that nobody is dismissing the hurt that many ordinary Unionists feel about Brexit and the protocol; that is why many of us advocated exhaustively for better solutions, which were dismissed, while DUP Members were gleefully all about their selfies with the European Research Group. However, we are being honest with people about the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly does not have a role in that negotiation.
In the debate about restoring the institutions, people are frustrated at the idea that the DUP is the victim in all this, when the people I, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) and many others represent  are the people who have been Brexited against our will. Are we tearing everything down? Are we punishing the health service? No—we are turning up for work every day to try to find solutions.
We have heard it demonstrated today that no solutions are going to be acceptable. Perhaps I imagined the years of debate about blockchain and all the other technical solutions to Brexit that were put forward, including by the DUP, but we know there is no bottom line that is going to be met. Instead, we have the promulgation of a “them’uns did it” narrative that the protocol is somehow a creation of Irish people, nationalists and foreigners in the EU, rather than a proposal by the UK Government to get themselves off the hook of the original Brexit trilemma and the fact that we cannot reconcile a hard Brexit with the geography we have. In all the debate  I have heard over the last six years, including today, I have yet to hear a solution to that.
The Good Friday agreement is about solutions. That agreement and the institutions it created were supposed to give life to the aspirations of everybody in Northern Ireland, regardless of their community background or their view on the constitutional issue. Instead of people being able to see opportunity in politics and opportunity in public service, they just see dysfunction, an Assembly not sitting and—with respect—a UK Government who are not interested.
People in Northern Ireland know that our future is not fixed. They know the experience we are having right now does not have to be the experience that we have forever, and people are beginning to look clearly at their options. They see the Stormont dysfunction and the merry-go-round here, and they can see a very clear contrast with the Government in the rest of the island of Ireland, who are stable and delivering a budgetary surplus that can mean investment in public services.
The Social Democratic and Labour party has always been clear about our desire to create a new Ireland on the basis of consent, and we have rejected the scorched-earth approach of others that would see a new Ireland rooted through dislocation and disarray, but the hard truth is that those creating chaos in our institutions are absolutely scorching the earth. They are driving more people every day to think about a new paradigm in which they can enjoy good governance, run their businesses and raise their families.
Our primary political objective will always be meeting the needs of people in the here and now. That is why we support the provisions in this Bill—reluctantly, because we know it is required to keep the show on the road, and it does just that and no more.
We acknowledge the need to postpone an election. Elections are supposed to put power in the hands of the people, but the reality is that an election, had it been run next month, or in March or May, if the veto was not removed and the blockage was not removed, would do no such thing. It would not put the people in the driving seat and it would further disrespect the mandate that those people expressed six months ago.
We acknowledge the need to give clarity about interim political decisions, but—I appreciate that the Secretary of State understands this—it is no substitute for democratically accountable Ministers. We are not over the last governance black hole that caused much of the degradation in public services that we are currently experiencing.
However, the SDLP is equally clear that DUP intransigence cannot be rewarded by either direct rule or indirect rule. In the absence of an executive, even with the mitigations in this Bill, the Conservative party would be in the driving seat on major decisions. That does not reflect the will of the people as expressed either this past May or in 1998 with the Good Friday agreement. That agreement was about creating devolved institutions that reflect the views of people who are Unionist, people who are nationalist and people who are neither.
Plan A for the SDLP is a devolved Executive as chosen by the people in May. But we have tabled new proposals that would give a formal consultative role to the Irish Government and a role to the First Ministers-designate, who should be chosen from the two largest traditions—[Interruption.] People can call that what they will, but we are very clear that if strands 1 and 2 are deliberately paralysed, strand 3 and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference should be consciously operated. Parties should know that that will be the recourse and the consequence of their choice to hold strands 1 and 2 of the Good Friday agreement to ransom. The institutions of government rely on Unionists, nationalists and others working together in our substantial common interest, and that principle should be hardwired into any governance decisions—even those that are operating only temporarily.
We acknowledge the injustice of MLAs who are not fully at work continuing to receive a full and decent salary at a time when so many are struggling, and when those with trade unions are losing pay because they are striking to improve terms and conditions and the public services that they deliver. We regret the collective punishment and untargeted scope of this approach.
As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) outlined, there are many decent and talented people in all the parties, including the many who have stepped forward for election for the first time this year. I spend a lot of time trying to persuade people of all political backgrounds to go into politics. It is difficult enough to attract talent—many of us now on these Benches had our pay cut last time the Assembly was in abeyance—but it is harder when you say, “These are the terms and conditions. This is the abuse you’ll get on social media. These are the hours you’ll keep. And by the way, for a few months every year, you’ll struggle to pay your mortgage and childcare bills because of the intransigence of others.” We have tabled an amendment that would direct that tactic at those who are creating the problem and who refuse to allow even the nomination of a Speaker.
We have also proposed by amendment a means of electing First Ministers and a Speaker. That would move us away from the culture of veto and the focus on binary designation, neither of which have, in recent years, proven healthy for discourse or decision making, unfortunately. That reflects our desire to evolve and reform the institutions without jeopardising the fundamental principles of power sharing and mutual respect. There is absolutely no attempt by the SDLP to move away from those principles, which have been at the core of our party and everything we do for the last five decades and more. But if that is only ever expressed  by veto and by blocking the people of Northern Ireland from having a decent life—if that is the only tactic that people appear to be prepared to use—we will absolutely look for solutions.
If the DUP continues to be abstentionist in the new year, post any EU-UK deal, and given that an Assembly election while those are still the conditions will not put power in the hands of people, we will explore reform with more urgency—

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: If you have any seats.

Gregory Campbell: Yes—if you have any left.

Claire Hanna: You are doing a great job yourself.
We began that work by tabling amendments to the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 to introduce an alternative election of First Ministers—[Interruption.] We do that work despite the chuntering from a sedentary position of people who just say no, who just nag from the sidelines, who are blocking good governance, and who, day by day, move more people towards considering and exploring a new Ireland—[Interruption.] Those on the DUP Bench below me have no interest in making Northern Ireland work, have derided and mocked people like me for wanting to do so, and have shown that they are unwilling or unable to do that. Those who vote for that party to protect the Union should really take a strong look at the strategic direction that is being provided and the value that they are being given for their vote.

Nigel Evans: Order. I am going to be less generous than I was earlier. As far as the protocol is concerned, the points have been well heard. Members’ remarks are going much wider than what is in the legislation before us. Can we have a bit of focus, please? There is plenty of meat here.

Claire Hanna: I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and my focus is exclusively on the restoration of the Executive and restoring government to the people of Northern Ireland. I am outlining the efforts that we made last year with the MEPOC Act to introduce or reintroduce mechanisms that would move us away from veto and confrontation, which have become the political culture.
We sought to equalise the titles of First Minister to clarify the joint nature of that office and to end campaigning that is only ever built on dominating other communities. We also attempted to introduce a change that would allow for the election of First Ministers based on the votes of two thirds of Assembly Members, including broad-based, not majority rule. It is worth saying that had that been voted for last July and extended to the election of the Speaker, we would be back in the Assembly now.
Solutions do exist, and we will engage with any solutions that are serious about ending the deadlock while retaining the core principles that we adhere to of common endeavour and mutual respect. The way that things are being operated at the moment and the tactics of the DUP are destroying trust in devolution, and the DUP is profiting from prioritising victory and veto in a system designed for partnership. As John Hume said many times, “If you ask for all or nothing, you will get  nothing.” [Interruption.] DUP Members may think they are being smart by chatting over me, as they do. They reject anybody whose views are not identical to their own, and they will see in the long term where they get. As long as this fiasco continues, the Social Democratic and Labour party will continue to speak up for people who are just trying to get through their days, live their lives, raise their families and run their businesses. We will support the necessary provisions in the Bill that help them do that.

Carla Lockhart: I take no pleasure in seeing this legislation before the House today, as it sadly represents failure between the Government and the EU to protect the cornerstone of the political institutions in Northern Ireland and the fundamental principle of cross-community consent. It represents a failure to the Unionist people of Northern Ireland and businesses in Northern Ireland, and it continues to put at risk the great Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Today, I want to make it as clear as I can that Unionism does not consent to the protocol or the institutions operating in a business-as-usual manner. Today, Unionism feels aggrieved by the sheer disregard for its concerns. Never before have I experienced such a groundswell of support for our position to hold the line, not give in and take a stand—all phrases we have heard so often from the people we represent. Let us not forget the words of the very author of the Belfast agreement, the late David Trimble, who said:
“Make no mistake about it, the protocol does not safeguard the Good Friday Agreement. It demolishes its central premise by removing the assurance that democratic consent is needed to make any change to the status of Northern Ireland.”
The protocol poses an existential threat to the Belfast agreement and the St Andrews agreement. Despite the time and space afforded by my party leader for the Government and EU to face up to the stark reality and find a new way forward, nothing was done. We had months of minimal action and tinkering around in the hope that the DUP would quietly let it slide. Well, the DUP can be accused of many things, but not of backing down and letting things slide. When we see the economic and constitutional damage the protocol is having on the people of Northern Ireland, we will not let it slide and we will continue to take our stand for the people who are impacted.
Our commitment to devolution throughout that window of opportunity was clear. While we urged people to face up to the political reality, others looked away.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does my hon. Friend think it important that those who want full implementation of the protocol take cognisance of a recent report from this House and the House of Lords, which claims that that would halt east-west trade within 48 hours? Is it not the case that the reason why Unionists are staying out is that this protocol damages everybody’s livelihoods in Northern Ireland?

Carla Lockhart: Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s point is so well made. The takeaway from that is that it is the industry leads who are saying that the protocol will grind east-west trade to a halt within 48 hours, and that is a stark reality.
Last week I hosted the Minister of State on a visit to my constituency, and I thank him for that visit. He met Wilson’s Country potatoes. Wilson’s is a leading potato brand, but it faces ongoing difficulty arising from the protocol, because Scottish seed potatoes, needed to grow crops of certain varieties that the market demands, are banned from entering Northern Ireland.

Nigel Evans: Order. I gently ask the hon. Lady to return to the legislation that we are considering. We understand why we are here discussing it, and that has been dealt with very well by Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, but I do not think that we need every Member to stand up and cover exactly the same area. The protocol will be debated again in the Chamber, I am absolutely certain, but let us not have lengthy speeches on it today.

Carla Lockhart: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for bringing us back to the Bill. The fact remains that we would not need it if the protocol was resolved.
Moving on to MLAs’ pay, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, seems determined to punish MLAs for his party’s failures. His party gave us the protocol, and in doing so undermined the fundamental building blocks of the institutions and the Union which they claimed to cherish. His party failed to act when the DUP offered time and space to find a replacement and avoid the position in which we find ourselves. Does he accept any responsibility?
Let me be absolutely clear: DUP MLAs will embrace any pay cut that the hon. Member for North Dorset, or anyone else for that matter, imposes on them, whenever it comes. That will not change their stance or the stance of the DUP. As someone who was in the Assembly when pay was cut last time, I can assure the House that we are in politics because of our conviction, not for the pay that we receive.
Our refusal to enter the institutions has the support of our community, which will allow us to return to them only on the basis of respect for our constitutional position and the restoration of the integrity of the UK. The Minister of State knows that, because he heard the message loud and clear in Hillhall when he visited my constituency and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) last week.
Today, Members are exercised about the pace and severity of a pay cut. They ought to be exercised about the reality that should a new way forward not emerge soon, there will be no MLAs, no Ministers, no Stormont and no devolution. Furthermore, should those who now seek to exclude Unionism from the institutions under the guise of reform continue to undermine the agreements they claim to cherish, restoring those institutions will be increasingly difficult. It is telling that the same voices fell silent for years when Sinn Féin refused to enter the institutions. Indeed, rather than demand their exclusion, Alliance and Social Democratic and Labour party representatives stood at protests shoulder to shoulder with those blocking government. The double standards, and the desire to exclude Unionism from the institutions, are not lost on my community.

Claire Hanna: Does the Member acknowledge that only three or four days ago I stood shoulder to shoulder, so to speak, with a member of her party when addressing  provision by the education authority? Does she acknowledge that working with members of other parties on different issues is not the same as endorsing their entire policy platform? She made an accusation again about my party withholding government. Is she going to keep repeating that falsehood, or does she acknowledge that cross-party working does not mean that we buy into the entire manifestoes and approaches of other parties?

Carla Lockhart: We will have an opportunity to read Hansard and the Member’s contribution today, so we will be able to see that there is a clear ignoring of Unionist views and a clear sidelining of Unionism and the many people on whom the protocol continues to impact.

Nigel Evans: Order. Get back to the Bill please.

Carla Lockhart: The onus is on the Government and the EU to bring about the conditions whereby power sharing can be restored. Should a new agreement be found that meets the seven tests that my party has outlined, we will not be found wanting in returning to office. The ball is in the court of the Secretary of State.

Stephen Farry: I cannot say that I welcome the legislation, but I recognise that it is sadly necessary. It is shameful and disgraceful that the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are currently not in place. We continue to maintain that they should be established forthwith.
We are facing twin governance and financial crises in Northern Ireland, and huge damage has been done to our economy and public services through delayed or missed decision making. That comes at a time when there is immense pressure on Northern Ireland’s public finances. I have made the point that mistakes were made in the past and the roof was not mended when the sun was shining and we had better opportunities, so difficult decisions are now required. Indeed, our health service in particular is going through tremendous difficulties. Necessary reforms to our public sector are being delayed, which means that the budget crisis gets ever tighter as we try to balance the books on an ever-declining, burning platform.
I will touch on the key areas of the Bill, mindful of your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I will touch on the revised deadline for the formation of an Executive and, by implication, the resumption of the duty on the Secretary of State to call an election within 12 weeks if those deadlines are not met. The Secretary of State took the right decision to defer an election after 28 October and to seek further flexibility. In the current climate, an election would have been counterproductive and would have made the task of restoration and the wider negotiations with the European Union more difficult.
My difficulty lies with the revised dates. I appreciate that the Government have to try to move the process along and put in place some kind of deadline to get people over the line, but there is a disconnect between the timescale that the Northern Ireland Office is setting out and the reality of the pace of negotiations with the European Union. Evidently, we have seen a change in  the mood music over the past few weeks, which is extremely welcome, but we have not yet seen real progress in the substance of those negotiations. I earnestly wish that we reach a conclusion as quickly as possible, which will require flexibility from the UK and, may I say, the European Union. The UK Government need to take a view on exactly where they will land on these issues; I will refrain from going into the detail of those discussions, given the nature of the Bill.
The shadow Secretary of State has already alluded to the fact that the first deadline in the legislation of 8 December is next Thursday, which may in practice be only a couple of days after the Bill gets Royal Assent. What seemed to be a reasonable deadline a few weeks ago is now, I suspect, fairly meaningless, so we are focused on the second deadline of 19 January, which I note is essentially only seven weeks away. In theory, that is ample time for the negotiations with the European Union to reach a conclusion, but based on the rate of progress that we have seen in recent weeks and months, we need to be realistic that that may not be the case.
We could therefore be in a situation where the Secretary of State has a restored duty to call an election after 19 January. At that stage, perhaps progress will have finally been made in the negotiations or we might be in or about to enter the metaphorical tunnel of those negotiations. In that context, I venture that the prospect or actuality of an Assembly election would be at best counterproductive and at worst extremely damaging. The talks could grind to a halt because of that potential election, or a certain political party or others could harden their red lines about those negotiations, which would make compromise, or the acceptance of a compromise deal, more difficult.
Obviously we need strong leadership from all quarters to ensure that we can get something workable over the line. I suggest to the Secretary of State that this Bill is too inflexibly framed. I appreciate the need to focus minds, but if after 19 January it is manifestly not in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, the negotiations or the wider public interest to have an election, the only recourse available will be the Secretary of State’s coming back to Parliament seeking a further Bill. I imagine it would go down like a lead balloon if we were in that situation. I urge the Secretary of State to take the time between now and consideration of this Bill in the other place to reflect on the way forward—to keep us focused on the job in hand but to give that bit of flexibility if it proves necessary.
Secondly, I want to talk about the guidance. I welcome the publication of the draft guidance today, but the Bill is at best a stopgap in terms of governance. We have a major hole in that regard. What we have before us is neither tenable nor sustainable beyond the shortest possible periods. There are many difficult, pressing, urgent decisions that need to be taken, and it is right that civil servants are reluctant to take significant decisions that are normally left to be taken at the political level. There are particular difficulties in taking budget decisions: it is one thing keeping a budget ticking over on a care and maintenance basis, but if the books need to be balanced in a tighter budget situation, any decision to cut something is inherently political and will be subject to some degree of challenge. The civil servants are placed in an unenviable situation, but a balance must be struck between recognising that reluctance while at least enabling critical things to be taken forward.
We must have some further discussion on the guidance. I understand it could be clarified in due course, but what type of consultations will happen over a short period of time to get the draft guidance turned into final guidance whenever this Bill receives Royal Assent? I also seek an assurance that the guidance will be flexible enough to enable—rather than direct—civil servants to implement any pay body recommendations, because that is clearly a pressing issue for many public sector workers in Northern Ireland, who perhaps at this stage have not received what has been made available in Great Britain, never mind the legitimate concerns around additional pay that many are making.
On MLA pay, I declare a previous interest in that I was an MLA whose pay was deducted under a previous Assembly. It was difficult, but it was the right thing to do, and I recognise that cutting MLA pay is the right thing to do today. I say slightly flippantly that it should be directed primarily at those who are blocking restoration of the Executive, but I appreciate that is difficult to do. I recognise the remarks from Members of other parties that this might not in itself force a change of minds, but as the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), recognised, there is major disquiet at MLAs receiving their full salary in the current environment, and that must be recognised inside this Parliament. Most MLAs recognise that; certainly my party colleagues do so. Notwithstanding the fact that they cannot perform their full job description as set out, they are working extensively every week to act on behalf of their constituents, to make representations and work with other groups in Northern Ireland. But they are also massively frustrated.
Finally, I want to talk about what will happen if this Bill fails, and indeed if there is no outcome from negotiations with the EU or we have an outcome that most common-sense people would accept but is none the less rejected by some Northern Ireland parties, and we therefore have continued blockage. As I have said, I do not believe the current stopgap approach to governance is sustainable. Decisions should be taken by locally elected people in Northern Ireland on behalf of their constituents. If we are in the situation of defaulting to direct rule, that is problematic in many respects. As there has been some talk of joint authority being an alternative, I want to take this opportunity just to make it very clear that for my party, joint authority is outside the context of the Good Friday agreement and outside the principle of consent. None the less, if we are to talk about direct rule, that would have to have an Irish dimension of some description, and that has been understood going back to the Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985.
That is basically what we are looking into, but short of that, we should be looking at reform of the institutions. I am not going to go into the detail of that, except to reiterate my party’s very strong commitment to allow those parties in Northern Ireland that wish to govern to do so. That is by far the next best alternative to the current arrangements. I would prefer that to be done on an inclusive basis, but the point is that some parties have the opportunity to take up places in government, and it is they who are self-excluding.

Sammy Wilson: When did the Alliance party have this Damascus road experience? For three years when Sinn Féin was holding up progress and holding up the  Assembly in Northern Ireland, I never heard once that the Alliance party believed that the Assembly and its structures should be changed to facilitate that.

Stephen Farry: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his intervention because it gives me the opportunity to reiterate that my party has consistently advocated reform of the Assembly structures. It has been in our party manifestos going back to 1999. In particular, in the period between 2017 and 2020, my party made numerous comments publicly on the need for reform. I will gladly forward copies of speeches made by my party leader to party conferences to the right hon. Member so that he can read them with a great deal of interest.

Colum Eastwood: Far be it from me to get involved in this conversation between the Alliance party and the DUP, but would the hon. Member like to tell us his understanding of what the DUP’s position actually is on mandatory coalition, because as far as I am concerned, it seems to be a new convert to the principle?

Stephen Farry: We can look at this in two different ways—what happened before 1972, and what happened in the 1970s and 1980s through to what happened during the talks. I would stress that, if we read the DUP manifestos up to the point of its current walk-out, we can see that it was actually a fan of reform of the institutions and moving away from mandatory coalition. It was a principle for the DUP then, but that is no longer the case. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) famously went on “Question Time” during the last impasse and lambasted the situation in which a party with about 25% of the vote was able to frustrate the institutions. I think I will leave it there.

Stella Creasy: I rise to make what I hope is, in comparison, a relatively brief speech, but I have some questions about how this Bill will work. I hope that will meet your requirements, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I think it is important that we ask these questions and that we centre in this debate the people of Northern Ireland. We have already talked a lot about the institutions, the challenges with the protocol and, indeed, Brexit, as well as about who needs to be flexible—this Government, the European Union—but I think it is absolutely key to talk about the public in Northern Ireland and how they are affected by this legislation. I say that as somebody who has now lobbied five separate Secretaries of State about Executive formation legislation.
Members who were here before 2019 will remember the last incarnation of this legislation, which led to the situation in which we finally had legal abortion in Northern Ireland. It is with the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 and how this Bill will affect that in mind that I want to ask these questions. As I said earlier, it has now been 1,134 days since we passed that legislation, and this House took a decision that we wanted to support access at local level that is safe and legal for women in Northern Ireland. We agreed subsequently, in the abortion regulations in 2020—it is 973 days since they were passed—that there should be a service on request up to 12 weeks and that  beyond that, up to 24 weeks, two medical professionals could certify that a woman should have an abortion if there was a greater risk of mental harm or physical harm if she did not, which is very similar to England and Wales.
I raised that because one thing to remember in all of these debates is that decriminalisation and legalisation do not mean deregulation. Indeed, the legislation that we have seen flowing from the 2019 Act absolutely sets out how access to abortion should be provided. The challenge for many of us, though, is that during all that time, that has not happened. Time and again, we have seen the 2 million women in Northern Ireland denied that right. Abortion might be legal, but it is not accessible. Indeed, in July this year we heard that a woman in Belfast who had suffered from pre-term premature rupture of membranes was told that she had to travel to Liverpool. We have seen many more not able to access pills.
The reason we have been given for that through the last three years is basically a stand-off between the Northern Ireland Health Department and the UK Government, with the Government upholding the human rights of women in Northern Ireland set out in the 2019 Act. In the last three years, women in Northern Ireland have directly suffered because the previous incarnation of the Bill had not been delivered. All of us in the House recognise that it is one thing to win an argument—it might be another thing to win an amendment—but delivery and implementation are where change happens.

Steven Baker: The hon. Member has won the argument, and I can tell her that we are making enormous progress towards delivering abortion. The Government can confirm that services will be commissioned in Northern Ireland before the Bill passes through the other place.

Stella Creasy: I thank the Minister for that confirmation. I hope he will join me in paying tribute to all those women in Northern Ireland who have continued to work on the issue, championing their sisters and neighbours—those who need these services—through the political dysfunction and patriarchal discrimination that has led to a situation where we might have decided that something was legal through a previous incarnation of the Bill, but it was not accessible.

Robin Walker: rose—

Stella Creasy: I happily give way to one of the many former Ministers, in addition to Secretaries of State, who has worked with us on this issue.

Robin Walker: I join the hon. Member in paying tribute to those people who have campaigned on this issue. They have been right to raise the disparity of rights. If we believe in the United Kingdom, there ought to be that equality of rights. I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister said, because it is frustrating that the House can pass laws that do not get enacted in such a way. It will be an important step for Parliament to take to ensure that that law is respected across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Stella Creasy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know that he was frustrated by it. That is why I am speaking today. We have seen the frustration, and for three years women in Northern Ireland have  seen multiple letters traded between Departments but little change. It is worth reflecting that even during the pandemic, women from Northern Ireland were still travelling to England and Wales, with 161 doing so in 2021 compared with 371 in 2020.
It is welcome to hear what Ministers have to say. We helped to give those women a voice in 2019, and through the Bill we want to see those women given delivery in 2022. I have some specific questions that I hope the Minister will be able to address. The Government have powers in the Bill to direct commissioning. We recognise that public services need to continue. Those services include healthcare and—let us be clear—abortion is healthcare. Those who have sought to threaten that have not protected devolution; they have simply harmed women, and in particular women from refugee and minority community backgrounds who have been the least able to take advantage of an ability to travel in the United Kingdom.
Previous Ministers have told me that, even under those powers, one of the operational actions is for women to continue to travel. I hope the Minister will recognise that that is not a satisfactory response, particularly when dealing with incredibly tragic cases in which, frankly, travelling creates a health risk. Will he set out how that will be dealt with? I recognise that there is a challenge with staffing and that we are asking Ministers to move quickly, although some of us might reflect that, in three years, it is not unrealistic to have asked for priority to be given to training and recruitment, because the direction of travel that I was told was coming by previous Secretaries of State should have been translated across. Will he set out how the Government will ensure that the service will be properly staffed not just in one or two locations but across Northern Ireland? We know that there are travel difficulties within Northern Ireland, so it is not enough to say to women, “The service that you might need does exist, but it is in a particular location.” We absolutely want to see those services start, but ultimately, when we talk about a safe, legal and local service, it really does need to be local, just as we seek similar provision for our constituents here in England, Wales and Scotland.
Another issue we have seen, which I hope this funding can help address, is that there are very clear reports that some are using the online nature of seeking guidance about where services are to cause harm. What I mean is that some people are using advertising, particularly on things like Google, to encourage women to go to services that are not about abortion, but are trying to deter women from having an abortion. One of the critical issues is how women will know how to access these services. Ministers have said that they hope that services will be available on the ground within the next 90 days, particularly services for between 10 weeks and 12 weeks. We know that access to pills is patchy, but access to medical procedures is non-existent. If women are seeking information about those services and how to access them, under this legislation, what powers will the Government have and what action will they take to make sure that those women are getting information about the right services—the actual abortion services—if they make that choice?
Finally, I want to make a plea to the Minister: there is still a stigma, as I know he understands. Contrary to what might have been said in this place, there is very  clear evidence that the mood of people in Northern Ireland has shifted on this issue, as the mood of the people in Ireland shifted following the “repeal the eighth” campaign. There is widespread support for the provision of these new services and frustration at the delay that has taken place, but if those services are to survive, we need to address the stigma about working to support women who wish to have an abortion, and also having an abortion. I hope Ministers will talk about what they will do while we wait to see whether the Executive can be reformed, but also about what they will do to tackle that stigma, so that we can get the staffing and ensure that when a woman in Northern Ireland exercises her human right to choose to have an abortion, she does not face any further barriers.
As we have said, making laws—whether in this place or in devolved Administrations—requires more than just passing a Bill. It requires implementation and delivery, and the past three years have been a story of not delivering—of not meeting the promise that we made to those women in Northern Ireland. In passing this legislation today, and delivering on the work that has been done and the promise of that previous legislation, we have to show our homework, and that homework is both logistical and cultural. I hope Ministers recognise where these questions are coming from. They will have my support in working this through, and I welcome the words of the Secretary of State when he talks about this being an important provision. However, it is necessary to seek detail now, because we have had five different Secretaries of State, so many different letters and so little progress. The women in Northern Ireland who need this service deserve to be heard.

Nigel Evans: Following the next speaker, we will move on to the wind-ups. I call Jim Shannon.

Jim Shannon: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is always a pleasure to speak in the House, but this is a subject matter that we hoped we would not have to address or bring before the House. However, because we are where we are, we feel it is important to do so. My party has tabled amendments, which I believe demonstrate our concerns; we will do what we can to address those concerns, and also to show support for our community. I respect the fact that there are Members present from different parties and with different opinions. It is no secret that we differ on many things, but there is an understanding that we do what we can to represent our constituents, so I am very pleased and proud to be able to stand here and speak for my Ulster Scots, Unionist community of Strangford.
I will speak to some of the DUP amendments, particularly amendment 13. First, I want to make it clear that we in the DUP recognise the need for what we have in front of us today. It is not what we want, but we are where we are, and we have to recognise that. We believe in the right to take a stand for the political good, and unfortunately, the fundamental issue of the Northern Ireland protocol remains. The allowance for negotiations is also welcome, which is part of why the deadline will be extended by another six weeks, but it is important to remember that time is no object in this debate. The route to a resolution will come through an understanding of our conditions in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol.
The Bill in front of us is the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation Etc) Bill. We are here today because we do not have an Executive, and we do not have an Executive because of the protocol. We can talk until we are blue in the face—or until the cows come home, as we say in my neck of the woods—about the need to restore the Executive, but if Executive formation really is our purpose, we are wasting our time unless we address the issue that stands in the way of Executive formation.
In addressing the challenge of Executive formation—to which the Bill’s title refers—it is vital that we recognise that the imperative for finding a solution arises from the fact that the current arrangements cause the UK Government to violate international law, a situation that must be terminated as quickly as possible.

Nigel Evans: Order. Mr Shannon, I will allow you to touch on the protocol, but not to go into detail on that.

Jim Shannon: I will move straight on, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Clauses 3 to 5 permit the exercise of Northern Ireland departmental powers by senior civil servants under guidance published by the Secretary of State. Our amendment 13 reinforces the importance of accountability to the people of Northern Ireland. Elected representatives have the power to legislate and make laws for Northern Ireland, and to be scrutinised and held very much accountable. The proposal sets out the framework relating to the choice to do something, why it was done and how it could be done. At the same time, it allows people to be liable to answer questions from MLAs and MPs. As policymakers, we are all subject to the same scrutiny and accountability measures. If legislation cannot be made in the Northern Ireland Assembly, those who are asked to do it are responsible for ensuring that there is robust and transparent reasoning.
The Northern Ireland Executive would be functioning were it not for the Northern Ireland protocol. The current arrangements are a clear violation of international law. Articles 1 and 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol are subject to the Good Friday agreement. It is important to remind ourselves of that, because we are all looking forward, for different reasons, to a future time. The GFA commits the state parties to uphold the right of the people of Northern Ireland
“to pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.
Articles 3 to 19 of the protocol are subject to the GFA and article 2 places an explicit obligation on the UK Government not to allow the impacts of the protocol to diminish the rights under the GFA. It is important to reiterate those things. I understand that everyone in the House is fully committed to maintaining the GFA.
The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is due to be on Report in the House of Lords, and I urge that all is done to secure its smooth passage. Many comments have been made about the DUP’s decision not to nominate a Speaker during the period when we have had no Assembly, yet no consideration has been given to cross-community support for this Bill. The Unionist community, which we in this House and in this party represent, are very clear about where we stand on these issues. There is no community support for this. Residents from other constituencies have contacted me to thank our party for standing up against the Northern Ireland protocol.  This is not a Unionist issue, but one that impacts the Northern Ireland economy and its place in the United Kingdom. It restricts our local businesses from having free-flowing trade and, most importantly, it subjects our constituents to red tape and undermines their right to trade with their United Kingdom neighbours.
As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) spoke at some length on this issue, for the record, the Government did a consultation in Northern Ireland, and 79% of the people who responded from Northern Ireland were against any changes in the abortion law in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland were asked for their opinion and when the Government got their opinion, they ignored it. She does not care, of course, about the opinion of 79% of the people in Northern Ireland, but we already knew that. Opposition Members will know of our opposition to amendment 11, which was not selected. We are here to represent and speak for the 79% of people who objected to that.
I note with interest amendments 1 to 4 from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on MLA pay. I reiterate that we cannot stress enough that the notion that we might be moved back into government for monetary reasons is grossly misjudged. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), the leader of our party and of our DUP group here, clearly said that we will not be bullied.

Simon Hoare: Let me rehearse the arguments. This is nothing to do with bullying, or whatever; it is about demonstrating a sense of fairness to taxpayers, so if people do only 50% of the work, they get only 50% of the pay. That is it.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman gives us his opinion. My opinion is clearly very different: we will not be persuaded, bullied or coerced—whichever way people want to put it—into something. As far as we are concerned, we have an objective that we want to achieve and a mandate from Northern Ireland, and we will deliver on our mandate.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Can my hon. Friend explain how removing the salaries of some MLAs will suddenly make the Assembly work, when under the terms of the Belfast agreement, which the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) obviously supports, we cannot have a working Assembly unless Unionists are part of it? I fail to understand the logic of that position. Does my hon. Friend understand it?

Jim Shannon: In the Unionist community that we represent, people are clearly not persuaded by the actions that have been taken. As their elected representatives in this House, we feel very strongly about the matter, and so do their representatives back home.
The existential threat to Northern Ireland is the root of the entire issue. The problem that other parties have is that the DUP is taking a principled stand against an issue that has proven detrimental to Northern Ireland. It should not be an issue that sends Northern Ireland back into the past and divide Stormont down the middle. The DUP has remained strong and certain on the protocol, and there are no plans to dodge the issue of MLA salaries.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to reflect on the points that Front Benchers on both sides of the House have made about the Dublin criminal trial? Does he agree that if the current crisis were not going on, the trial would be an equally huge and significant crisis for the body politic not only of Northern Ireland, but of the Republic of Ireland? The Government really need to prepare themselves for the tsunami when the verdict eventually comes.

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for reminding us of that important factor, which cannot be ignored. The leader of Sinn Féin across all Ireland, north and south, is a Member for her political party down south and has jurisdiction through her party in Northern Ireland as well, so what happens in Dublin will clearly have an impact on Northern Ireland. I therefore believe, like my hon. Friend and others, that we cannot ignore the issue in this House. That is the point that I think he was making, and I concur totally.
The DUP was proud to table new clause 7, but it was not selected for debate. It would have changed the date of the local government elections in 2023 to take into consideration the King’s coronation celebrations. Because Northern Ireland elections are conducted under proportional representation, counting takes significantly longer than is normal in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Stephen Farry: May I put it on the record that my party agrees with the DUP on the issue? There may well be some degree of consensus on a pragmatic reform to take into account the need to respect the coronation and respect the elections in Northern Ireland. I hope that that gives the Northern Ireland Office a hint.

Jim Shannon: Well, we have a consensus! I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member and his party concur with our opinion, so I hope that when the Minister of State replies to the debate he will give us a positive answer. It is important because if 4 May remains election day, the results will extend into coronation day. That is the very nature of what will happen back home, so it must be changed to ensure the public participation of candidates, the electoral office staff, who are an important part of it all, and the party supporters attending count centres. I urge the Government to take our proposal into immediate consideration for the sake of the celebration of the King’s coronation, and I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) for his support.
The amendments that the DUP has tabled are for the greater good of Northern Ireland and our economic and constitutional position within this great United Kingdom. We hope that the Government will listen to us. They must be assured of our stealth and determination in regard to the damaging effect that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is having on Northern Ireland.

Nigel Evans: We now come to the wind-ups.

Tonia Antoniazzi: I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate so far. It was only a few weeks ago that I was standing in this Chamber to close the debate on the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill; I shared my regrets that the  Bill was being debated in this Chamber and not in Stormont. Hopefully today’s Bill will be a significant factor in the return to a functioning legislature in Stormont, but it would be remiss of me not to share again my disappointment that this House has been forced to act as a result of the political deadlock in Northern Ireland.
The restoration of the Executive is not simply about a restoration of process. The lack of an Executive has a very real impact on people’s lives in Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has outlined, the delay in the commissioning of abortion services has meant that women are still being forced to cross the border to access essential services, long after they should have been able to access them in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tireless work in raising the issue, and to the Minister for his words of commitment to addressing it by the time the Bill has passed through Parliament.
As Members have pointed out, Northern Ireland has longer NHS waiting times than any other UK region. Many will be aware of the particularly troubling figures relating to specialist women’s healthcare, with no trusts meeting the in-patient treatment targets for gynaecology. Owing to the lack of political leadership and power to reform the system, a significant proportion of women who suffer from life-changing illnesses such as endometriosis are having to pay for private healthcare, taking out loans and borrowing from friends and family so that they can simply live their lives without pain every day.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of real-life examples of the detrimental impact that the lack of an Executive is having on the everyday lives of the people of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) correctly described the Bill as an elastoplast—just a big plaster. While I welcome it, its words must be backed up by action from the Government, and I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that the restoration of the Executive at Stormont is at the top of the Cabinet’s agenda. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) said at the beginning of the debate, now is the time for the Prime Minister to show his commitment to the restoration of power sharing by visiting Northern Ireland, bringing together parties from across the political spectrum, and to take a lead in negotiations on the protocol. Belfast is not Blackpool, and he really does need to be there.
As the cost of living crisis deepens, the need for political leadership at Stormont becomes more urgent. We must have a commitment from the Government that they will use the additional time offered by the Bill well, and they must provide a clear plan for how they will work to restore the Executive.

Steven Baker: My goodness, what an excellent debate this has been.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) told us why we are here. “We are here because we do not have an Executive,” he said, “and we do not have an Executive because of the protocol.” With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chairman of the Select Committee, I think it must be said, on the basis of realistic observation of the factors at work, that the hon. Gentleman is right: that is indeed why we are here.
The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), said that the Bill was the “least worst” option, and I agree with him. As has been said several times, this is not a position in which we would want to find ourselves today. I think that Members in all parts of the House and all parties represented here, including the Democratic Unionist party, have made it clear that they are devolutionists and would like the Executive to be back in power; but I will return to the protocol in a moment. The Bill is a responsible—if hugely regrettable—piece of legislation, but we wish we did not have to do this.
I will try to deal with as many of the points that have been made as possible, conscious that I will be dealing with the amendments themselves in Committee. The Labour Front Benchers asked how we would use this time, but I was extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Hove for referring to the need to engage with the concerns of Unionism. Let me also record my thanks to Minister Byrne, from the Republic of Ireland, who tweeted about the need to recognise those legitimate concerns—although we need to do that in a way that is acceptable to nationalism, and I was grateful to the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), for referring to a move I had made in that direction. We need to have the humility to recognise the interests of our negotiating partners, and to say, as DUP speakers have said today, “Yes, we are willing to use our law to defend their interests.”
Since I have led myself on to this territory, I will just say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) made an exceptionally powerful speech, which I hope will be heard in the European Union. However, I also hope it will be heard together with the exceptional speech made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), the leader of the DUP. I think that anyone listening to his speech and appreciating that it was made in earnest—and, of course in good faith—will understand what forces at work here will allow us to restore the Executive in Northern Ireland, and restore it in a way that can endure and carry us through the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We all want to be there celebrating that agreement—I am pleased to see Members opposite nodding—with the institutions up and running. I think that all parties to the protocol, having listened to the speeches that have been made, can see very clearly those forces that are at work.
Members on the Labour Front Bench have asked us how we will use this time well. It is very clear how we need to use this time. We need to use it to persuade the European Union, and indeed ourselves, to work with great political resolve to deliver change on the protocol. This extension provides space for that further progress, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will continue to work with our colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to that end. It has always been our preference to resolve issues through talks. The Foreign Secretary and Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič are speaking regularly and UK Government officials are having technical talks with the EU.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Can the Minister update us on how the talks on veterinary medicines are going? Will we have a solution on that before 16 December? Can he also  outline whether any more of my constituents will be receiving VAT notices from the Republic of Ireland for goods on which VAT has already been paid in His Majesty’s territories here?

Steven Baker: The right hon. Gentleman makes his point with great clarity and force, but I think he encourages me to stray a little too far from the Bill on this occasion. If I recall correctly, I have replied to him on the question of veterinary medicines—whether through a parliamentary answer or a letter, I forget. I think I have signed off a reply, but I will check.
Officials are continuing to hold technical talks, but the reality is that there is still some distance between us, even though some of our technical solutions are relatively close. I say to Members on the Labour Front Bench that we need to continue to show resolve. Anyone watching this debate will see that a great degree of consensus has broken out on all sides. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, the Chairman of the Select Committee, referred to our bromance, and although I have to tell him that he is not actually my type, people might like to observe the good will that exists in all parts of the House. We all want to get the protocol resolved so that we no longer have to talk about it, get the Executive up and running and move on to providing the good government that the people of Northern Ireland deserve.
Before moving on to other contributions, I want to join Labour Members in thanking the PSNI, particularly in the difficult circumstances it has recently faced.
With great respect to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I do not think that his visiting Belfast and holding multi-party talks will be a silver bullet. We can see plainly what the obstacle is to the formation of the Executive, and we need to focus our efforts on the European Union. I should just say that the Prime Minister’s attendance at the British-Irish Council in Blackpool was the first such attendance by a Prime Minister since 2007, and I am grateful that he had the opportunity to meet the Taoiseach.
The Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, made a point about the normalisation of politics, which elicited an interesting response from the leader of the DUP, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. We have to be extremely clear that we are always going to uphold all three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and the right hon. Gentleman set out clearly that that involves the consent of all communities. During my short experience of being in Northern Ireland, I have heard from the public there—and from a number of Members here, including the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna)—that people are clearly in the market for normal political government that concentrates on public services, and that there is a desperate need for that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee for making that point.
The role of the Irish Government was brought up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I want to be absolutely clear that we are not considering joint authority, nor will we. We have kept the Irish Government apprised of our plans to maintain public services in Northern Ireland in the absence of  Northern Ireland Ministers. The Irish Government share our commitment to devolution and the Good Friday agreement. We are pleased that we have begun to transform our friendship and relationship with Ireland, and we will continue to do so.
A number of Members, and particularly the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), raised the position that officials will find themselves in. We recognise that civil servants should not ideally be put in a position where they need to take political decisions themselves, but we simply cannot bring forward this further extension without taking measures to ensure that some decisions can be taken in the meantime. We believe that the Bill provides Northern Ireland’s civil servants with the clarity they require in order to take the limited but necessary decisions to maintain the delivery of public services during this period.

Gavin Robinson: I want to raise an important amendment that was tabled but not selected for consideration in Committee, on the Grenfell remediation scheme for non-aluminium composite material cladding. The money was distributed and then reallocated in Northern Ireland because the scheme was not in place. There are ongoing discussions with Whitehall. This is a public safety issue and, given that there was a fire in Belfast’s Obel Tower just two days ago, it needs urgent attention. Can we remove party politics and, if we are not going to get traction with this Bill, at least have a commitment from the Minister and the Secretary of State that they will turn their urgent attention to this?

Steven Baker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government care very much about this issue, as he does. This is a good moment to say the Bill is absolutely not taking powers for this Government to direct what happens in Northern Ireland on any particular policy, which is a good reason to come on to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), whom I congratulate on her victory in providing abortion in Northern Ireland. Before the Bill completes its passage through the other House, we will have commissioned services in Northern Ireland, but the Bill does not give Ministers of this Government the power to direct what is delivered by the Northern Ireland Department of Health, which will find that it is compelled to commission abortion services, but many of the questions she raises will be properly decided in Northern Ireland. That still relies on the Executive reforming to get the work done. We will commission services and, of course, the Secretary of State and I will continue to take a close interest in how those commitments are carried through and delivered.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) raised the issue of Sinn Féin MPs, and he talked about a figure of £10 million, which I do not recognise, so I would be grateful if he provided a breakdown so that I can consider what he said. Sinn Féin MPs are not paid salaries, because they do not take their seats. If we were to treat MLAs similarly, we would presumably reduce their salaries to zero, which is not our intent. We will have an evidence base when the Secretary of State makes his determination, and that evidence base is not likely to recommend the complete removal of salaries. We have chosen, for good, technical reasons, not to connect our measures to pensions. Of course, other measures, such as allowances, will continue.

Gregory Campbell: I accept what the Minister says about Sinn Féin MPs not getting salaries but, if there is to be a reduction, we cannot reduce something that is not given. The only thing they get is representative moneys and allowances. No attempt at all has been made to cut those moneys and allowances for not doing their job, despite repeated attempts to raise it with successive Leaders of the House.

Steven Baker: The hon. Gentleman makes his point with great passion, and I think we agree with one another that it is not a good thing to have abstentionist MPs, although I have to say I have met Sinn Féin MPs a number of times in London and found them to be very constructive—to a much greater extent than I expected. They do not draw any pay, and we do not anticipate reducing the pay of MLAs to zero, nor do we anticipate taking away their allowances. Members of the public watching this debate will see that we are behaving reasonably in relation to MLAs.
I thank everyone who has participated in this debate. We are absolutely determined to do what is necessary to restore the Executive in Northern Ireland, which is going to mean reaching a negotiated conclusion on the protocol, and I look forward to doing so.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Northern Ireland  (Executive Formation etc) Bill

Considered in Committee (Order, this day)
[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]

Clause 1 - Extension of period for making Ministerial appointments by six weeks

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in clause 2, page 1, line 15, leave out “19 January 2023” and insert
“a date set out in regulations by the Secretary of State”.
This amendment gives the Secretary of State discretion to set a later deadline for the filling of Ministerial Offices.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(5A) Guidance under subsection (4) must require senior officers of a Northern Ireland department who exercise a function in reliance on subsection (1)—
(a) to notify in writing members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Members of Parliament representing constituencies in Northern Ireland on each occasion that they exercise such a function, and to set out their justification and rationale for exercising the function, and
(b) to make themselves available to answer expeditiously any questions regarding their exercise of the function put by members of the Assembly or Members of Parliament representing constituencies in Northern Ireland.”
Amendment 7, page 2, line 28, after “Assembly” insert
“and have due regard to the views of the First Ministers designate (the leaders of the two largest groupings elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have due regard to the First Ministers designate, defined as the leaders of the two largest groupings elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, who are entitled to nominate the First Minister and the deputy First Minister.
Amendment 8, page 2, line 28, at end insert —
“(7) Any representations made by Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly under subsection (6) must be published by the Secretary of State, who must also place a written report of those representations in the library of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
Clauses 3 to 9 stand part.
Amendment 1, in clause 10, page 5, line 22, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
The intention of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to make a determination reducing the salary of Northern Ireland Assembly Members during a period in which the Northern Ireland Assembly is not functioning.
Amendment 2, page 5, line 24, leave out
“in respect of some or all of that period”
and insert
“with effect from 1 January 2023 (unless the Northern Ireland Assembly is functioning by then)”.
Amendment 3, page 5, line 28, at end insert—
“(2A) The first determination must reduce by 50 per cent the salaries of Northern Ireland Assembly Members payable during a period in which the Northern Ireland Assembly is not functioning.”
Amendment 4, page 5, line 40, leave out
“would have had were it not for”
and insert “have had under”.
The intention of this amendment is to link the pension entitlement of Northern Ireland Assembly Members to the salary they actually receive.
Clauses 10 to 15 stand part.
New clause 1—Report to Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee—
“(1) The Secretary of State must provide a written report to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons about the exercise of departmental functions under section 3 of this Act, no later than six weeks after the date on which this Act is passed, and thereafter at intervals of no more than six weeks until Ministerial appointments are made to the Executive.
(2) In this section ‘the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons’ means the Select Committee of the House of Commons known as the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee or any successor of that committee.”
New clause 3—Consultation with First Ministers designate—
“The Secretary of State must have due regard to the views of the First Ministers Designate (the leaders of the two largest groupings entitled to nominate First Minister and deputy First Minister) in issuing guidance under section 3 of this Act.”
New clause 6—Reports on progress towards forming an Executive—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, on or before 8 December 2022, publish a report explaining what progress has been made towards the formation of an Executive in Northern Ireland (unless an Executive has already been formed).
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each report published under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament by the end of the day on which it is published.
(3) The Secretary of State must make a further report under subsection (1) on or before 19 January 2023.
(4) For the purposes of this section an Executive is formed once the offices of the First Minister, deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers are all filled.”

Steven Baker: In speaking in favour of clause 1 standing part of the Bill, I do not propose to go through the Bill clause by clause and elaborate on its purpose, because the Secretary of State has not long done that during the debate on Second Reading. I also sense that Members have already spoken to the content of many of the amendments, so I propose to conclude my initial remarks now and then come back to the amendments in detail at the end of the debate.

Gavin Robinson: I wish to speak to the amendments in my name and those of my party colleagues. I have a sense from the way in which some colleagues have gathered that they are interested in an accelerated conclusion to proceedings, but I know that nobody would want to deny us the opportunity to talk to important matters that affect the Province and governance in Northern Ireland.
I suspect that the conclusion to our consideration of amendment 13 will be positive and allow Members to retire gracefully from the Chamber. Until we get there, however, it is important to say that I hope that Members were able to discern on Second Reading that there is agreement across the parties on the content of a whole range of amendments—some in scope, some out of scope —tabled for Committee. A number of the amendments are remarkably similar in intent and import. Whether we are Members of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Alliance party or the Democratic Unionist party, there is common ground to be had among all of us in this Committee stage and in other areas that fell outside consideration. If there is any encouragement to be taken from these proceedings, that should be it.
Amendment 13 is important, given that what we have in governance at the moment is suboptimal. There are ways in which we can enhance the governance oversight and democratic accountability of decisions taken through this Bill. We are asking that the Northern Ireland Office consider incorporating and involving Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly in the decisions taken and in notifying us accordingly. That is the import of amendment 13.

Steven Baker: rose—

Gavin Robinson: I know that the Minister has considered amendment 13 and that he has published helpful guidance, which he may wish to address now.

Steven Baker: Yes, we published the guidance as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was making his opening remarks. I draw the House’s attention to paragraph 15 of the draft guidance, which says that records should be kept of decisions that have been taken by officials. It goes on to say:
“A monthly summary report of decisions taken using the Guidance should be prepared by NI Departments and shared with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will promptly make these reports available to Parliament.”
We will be very happy to append “and MLAs”, and I hope that the guidance, as we aim to amend it, meets the aims and intentions of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment.

Gavin Robinson: We are almost there. I am very grateful to the Minister for that clarification. Clearly, the guidance says that the reports will be made available to Parliament. In our normal understanding, that would mean laying those reports in our Library. If we are incorporating MLAs, I think it would also be appropriate for relevant MPs who have expressed an interest in the passage of this Bill and who are from Northern Ireland to be able to get access to those reports. That means making them available in the Libraries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and to the Northern Ireland Assembly and relevant representatives.

Steven Baker: Absolutely no problem. We will implement that as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Gavin Robinson: Dame Rosie, you can see that there is a willingness and desire to move things along. I am very grateful to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for their engagement. That is a helpful clarification on the guidance.
As I mentioned tangentially during an intervention I made on Second Reading, a number of amendments that were tabled fell outside the scope of the Bill, but I hope that the Northern Ireland Office will engage with us and colleagues across the House pragmatically over the next few weeks, because these issues are not going to go away and need to be resolved.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Committee.

Simon Hoare: I rise to speak, Dame Rosie, while trying to maintain my composure, having been rejected by the Minister of State, but I am sure that both he and I will cope.
I wish to speak in support of the clauses in my name and the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), although I will not be pushing them to a Division. Let me take a moment to underscore the underlying principle of these amendments and to address front and centre the erroneous assertions of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson): these are not bullying tactics. I am pretty certain that most people who have an interest in this area will have been receiving emails and other communications from people across the divide and across the communities in Northern Ireland making a very simple point—a point that is underpinned by these amendments. The point is that no other employee in the public sector would say that they were prepared to do 50% of the job, but that they want 100% of the pay. Nobody who says that they are prepared to do 50% of the job but still want 100% of the pay would also then expect to get the full whack on the pension as well. If the pay is reduced, there should be a concomitant reduction in pension. It may well be that pension law precludes that, and the Minister of State might have suggested that that is the case.
We all know that there are powers in statute law, and clause 10 (1) says:
“During a period in which the Northern Ireland Assembly is not functioning, the Secretary of State may make a determination”.
Amendment 1 says that he “must” make a determination. The Secretary of State may make a determination not to do anything at all, but I want him to confirm that he will be looking at this issue, commissioning the evidence, coming to a conclusion and sharing it with this House and others. It is an important principle. We are all recipients of taxpayers’ money, and taxpayers’ money is always a precious commodity, and never more so than at a time of economic uncertainty, heightened prices, inflation and rising interest rates.
We need to make sure that those who seek election—nobody forces us to take up the burden and the privilege of public service—are prepared to shoulder that full burden, to put their shoulders to the wheel, to work as hard as we damn well can in order to address the needs of all of our constituents wherever they may happen to reside, and to discharge our duties, whether it be in Stormont or in this place, to the benefit of the wider community outside the narrow boundaries of our constituencies.

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for outlining the amendments that I support. Does he think that there seems to be some misunderstanding by DUP Members about the amendments that we have tabled? Amendment 9 could be argued to be somewhat discriminatory when it comes to various Members of the Legislative Assembly, but the amendments that we have tabled in my hon. Friend’s name do not seek to discriminate in any way at all.

Simon Hoare: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. We have sought to be equal across the piece. On a personal note, I have some considerable sympathy with those MLAs who have made representations to me over these past eight, nine or 10 hours. They say, “We want to be there. We want to be addressing the issues of health, housing, transport, infrastructure, encouraging inward investment, growing the economy, and making sure that the prosperity dividend of the peace process is felt across the communities of Northern Ireland. Why should we be held up from doing so because of one party?” Indeed, the artist, Sara O’Neill, sent me a message this morning to say that, as the protocol—the principal, legitimate concern of the DUP—is reserved to this place, and nothing to do with Stormont, would it not make more sense for the DUP to boycott Westminster and not Stormont?

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: rose—

Simon Hoare: I will not give way, because I want to be quick.
That is the principle underlying these amendments. I hope the Secretary of State will use his powers and use them speedily, because a message must be sent to the taxpayers of Northern Ireland that, if no one else is on their side, this place is.

Tonia Antoniazzi: I rise to speak to new clause 6 in my name and that of the shadow Secretary of State. I will not repeat too much of what was said on Second Reading; the Labour party has accepted the need for this legislation and, as its measures are so time limited, we do not think it needs significant changes. The Government have been clear that they have used previous Executive Formation Acts as the basis for this Bill. Our probing amendment has taken the same approach and is based on a section the Government put into the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019.
New clause 6 would simply require the Secretary of State to publish a report explaining what progress has been made towards the formation of an Executive in Northern Ireland if the deadlines in the Bill are passed without one being formed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) has set out, we need to hear from the Government how they will use the extra time this Bill gives them.
During the oral statement at the beginning of this month, the Secretary of State made several commitments at the Dispatch Box in response to Labour suggestions. We are really happy to work constructively with the Government on how we approach Northern Ireland. He said he would be happy to convene multi-party talks and request that the Foreign Secretary brief the Northern Ireland parties on protocol negotiations. He will know that those would be very constructive steps, but it is not clear if they have been taken yet.
As these debates have shown, there is a wealth of history to learn from on how the Government can move things forward. In the other place, my good friend Lord Murphy, who was very involved in the peace process, had this advice for the Government:
“The one thing I would stress in what I ask the Minister is that the negotiations themselves should be very different from what has occurred over recent months. First, there should be a proper process and plan, and there should be a timetable and a structure. There has been ad hocery, if you like, over recent months”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 November 2022; Vol. 825, c. 760.]
The deadlines in this Bill mean there is no more room for ad hocery. In 2019, when there was no Executive, the Government convened more than 150 meetings in a nine-week period. Similar ambition is needed now, and the House must be kept updated.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I had not intended to speak, but I really cannot allow the comments made by the Chair of the Select Committee to go without challenge. For someone who has chaired a Committee specifically on Northern Ireland for a number of years to state to this House that the protocol has nothing to do with the Northern Ireland Assembly is frankly amazing. The Northern Ireland Executive are responsible for implementing key elements of the protocol. The Assembly has a legislative role in relation to elements of the protocol and a four-year duty to decide whether the provisions of the protocol are to continue or not. For someone who ought to know better to suggest that the Assembly has nothing to do with the protocol is amazing.

Simon Hoare: I said the Assembly had nothing to do with the negotiation of the protocol. That is reserved to Ministers in this place. On the implementation, of course, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but the negotiations are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. That is the point I made; it was not about the implementation.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The implementation is the problem. The negotiation, hopefully, will deliver the solution. Therefore, we cannot divorce the Assembly from the impact the protocol is having, and it is simply unrealistic to do so.

Sammy Wilson: It is surprising that the Chair of the Select Committee has so little knowledge of something that we would expect him to be able to talk about with some degree of clarity. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be totally unreasonable to ask Unionists—who are opposed to the protocol and who believe it damages the constitution and their position in United Kingdom and hurts the economic standing of every citizen in Northern Ireland—to implement the thing to which they are so opposed?

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Not only would that be unreasonable, but those Assembly Members were elected on a mandate not to do so.

Claire Hanna: Does that mandate extend to the former Minister at the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs who, while government was being withheld from people, was writing to UK Government Ministers asking for portions of the protocol to be retained, to benefit financially farmers such as himself?

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Actually, that is not what the former DAERA Minister said. He recognised that the protocol is not working and is harming agriculture. Our farmers cannot bring seed potatoes from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, and there are many other restrictions on the movement of livestock and so on. The point he was making was that there should be no restriction on state aid support for farmers in Northern Ireland as a result of the protocol Bill—not as a result of the protocol.
We can go around in circles on all this. We can train-spot on MLA pay all day long, but the reality is that we are missing the train coming down the track. And the train coming down the track is the lack of consensus enabling the political institutions to function properly. That is what we need to resolve. The Bill allows more time for the solution to be found, and that is what we need to happen. We need the solution.

Stephen Farry: Members will be pleased to know that I will be extremely brief. I will touch on a few points.
First, I will not repeat the arguments for amendment 10 given that I mentioned them on Second Reading, but I invite the Secretary of State or the Minister to respond to the substance of it when they wind up. I hope they will reflect on what I and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) have said about not boxing themselves in for what lies ahead.
Beyond that, I stress that there is a need for some degree of ad hoc scrutiny in what happens over the coming weeks and months. With respect to my DUP colleagues, amendment 13, taken literally, is somewhat onerous, but there is also an elephant in the room: our best means to scrutinise decision making in Northern Ireland is to have a fully functioning Assembly.

Steven Baker: First, I thank Members opposite for being constructive in dealing with Northern Ireland issues while also holding us to account. They are holding us to account on new clause 6 in particular, and have asked us to provide reports. We propose instead to make statements to Parliament, including oral statements. Those Members know that they are very welcome to be in touch with us with suggestions. Clearly, we do not want to be in here every day—nor would we need to be—but we would wish to make statements so that Parliament is properly informed. The Secretary of State and I are fully committed to working constructively with the House.
Turning to amendment 10 on indefinite extension, it is not the intention of the legislation to create indefinite or undefined extensions to the Executive formation period. We are deeply aware that the previous political impasse dragged on for three years, and we cannot allow that to happen again.

Julian Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are in the last-chance saloon. We have all seen that political decision making on public services is required now. There is a short period, I would argue, for a negotiation on the protocol, and then we need to get back to an Executive. All these amendments are fine, but the only thing we have to achieve is a deal with the EU that allows our colleagues in the DUP to get back into the Executive.

Steven Baker: I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. Getting that deal will require us, as we have said several times, to respect the legitimate interests of our negotiating partners while also delivering on the legitimate interests of Unionists. I am extremely grateful to him for his support.

Stephen Farry: I want to press the Minister on that point. I fully accept his point that the legislation being open-ended is not desirable in any sense, but, equally, we are seven weeks away from the 18 January deadline. If he is genuinely telling us that he believes we will have a full outcome in that period, that is great, but surely he recognises that that may not be the case and that it would be best not to box himself in entirely.

Steven Baker: I certainly recognise that we may not reach a deal, and that is why the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill continues its passage in the other place, but the reality is that we cannot allow ourselves to drag on with indefinite extension. The people of Northern Ireland deserve good government, and that is why the legislation is drafted to create a short, straightforward and defined extension to the period for Executive formation. I very much hope that we will conclude an agreement, reform the institutions and then move forward.
Turning to the decision-making amendments, I will say some general things. The Bill includes provisions for pressing public appointments and the requirement to set the regional rate. The Bill does not confer powers on the Secretary of State to direct civil servants in respect of specific policies—rather, the Bill intends to clarify the powers available to Northern Ireland Departments to enable them to deliver in the public interest in the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers. The Secretary of State is required to provide the supporting guidance, which we have now published in draft. That recognises that some decisions should not be taken in the absence of Ministers, but it helps to guide the use of powers in that context.

Geoffrey Cox: I had the great privilege a little while ago of being the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, and I recall in the same situation the Chief Justice of Northern Ireland saying to me that there was a serious problem in the appointment of Northern Ireland barristers to the rank of King’s counsel. Can my hon. Friend give me the assurance that he and my right hon. Friend will be in close touch with the Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and that there will be no impediment to the appointment of King’s counsel in the province? It is very important from the point of view of judicial appointments generally that that first rung on the ladder is not obstructed or delayed.

Steven Baker: The Secretary of State is well aware of the issue that my right hon. and learned Friend raises. I am grateful to him for putting it on the record, and we will certainly take up the point that he makes.
We do not think we can anticipate all the decisions that civil servants will need to take, so this House should not try to start prioritising some decisions over others. We are clear, however, that we want to restore the Executive with locally accountable politicians taking those political decisions. Amendment 13 concerns reporting  on decisions taken. In my intervention on my friend the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), we reached a conclusion on what we will do through the guidance in paragraph 15, and I look forward to amending the guidance when it is published in its final form.
On amendment 7 and new clause 3 and having “due regard” to the views of the First Minister designate and the Deputy First Minister designate, the essential issue is that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement does not recognise any position of First Minister designate or deputy First Minister designate, nor a joint office of First Ministers designate, so it would not be appropriate to refer to those positions, which do not exist in this expedited legislation. There is also no reference in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement to leaders of groupings.
Clause 3 as drafted already requires the Secretary of State to have regard to representations made by any MLA, and that will allow views from across the political spectrum to be put forward, including but not limited to the leaders of the largest parties in the two largest designations within the Assembly. On other occasions, Members have conceded that the Secretary of State and I have been engaging widely with Members, and we will be glad to continue doing so.
Amendment 8 and new clause 1 are about publishing representations of MLAs and providing a report to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I can assure the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) that the Secretary of State will treat the duty with all the seriousness it deserves as we provide guidance to senior officers on the exercise of departmental functions in relation to clause 3(1). We do not think that publishing representations from MLAs themselves is a proportionate or necessary step. I would also make the same point about the hon. Members’ new clause 1, which would require a specific report to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on decisions taken. As we discussed earlier, reports will be made available through the Secretary of State to MLAs, Members of Parliament and through Libraries, as we discussed earlier.
We have already had a fairly wide-ranging discussion of MLA pay, but what I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Select Committee is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a real zeal for this issue. He will need to make a determination, and I know that he will consider the current evidence base, but also I am confident that he will instruct officials to look for further evidence on the level of remuneration that MLAs should receive while they are not sitting and carrying out their full duties. We have heard some reasonable arguments about what that will mean for people who are less well off, and I know that my right hon. Friend will bear all of that in mind when he makes his determination. However, I should like to reassure my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee about all of his amendments and say that his zeal is matched at least by that of my right hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset mentioned pension entitlements. Although it is perfectly reasonable to raise that, and we have considered the issue, the amendment would have a number of unintended consequences, which we do not have the powers to mitigate. We have therefore legislated to avoid those consequences.
I am extremely grateful for a wide-ranging and constructive debate. We have addressed a wide range of amendments to this short Bill, and they are all constructive. I am grateful to hon. Members above all for their forbearance on the compressed timescale that has been necessary for these measures.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
King’s Consent signified.
Bill read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Agriculture

That the draft Food and Feed (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 24 October, be approved.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.

Committees

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 6 to 16 together.
Ordered,

Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

That Tonia Antoniazzi be discharged from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and Ian Lavery be added.

Education

That Angela Richardson be discharged from the Education Committee and Nick Fletcher be added.

Foreign Affairs

That Saqib Bhatti be added to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Health and Social Care

That Dr Luke Evans be discharged from the Health and Social Care Committee and Paul Bristow be added.

Justice

That Ms Diane Abbott and Laura Farris be discharged from the Justice Committee and Janet Daby and Edward Timpson be added.

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

That Florence Eshalomi be discharged from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Bell Ribeiro-Addy be added.

Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

That Florence Eshalomi be discharged from the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee and Nadia Whittome be added.

Northern Ireland Affairs

That Stephanie Peacock be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Tony Lloyd be added.

Public Accounts

That James Wild be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts.

Science and Technology

That Zarah Sultana be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Christian Wakeford be added.

Women and Equalities

That Theo Clark and Philip Davies be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Dr Jamie Wallis and Mark Jenkinson be added.—(Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)

Petition

Petition - Rural bus routes in South Northamptonshire

Andrea Leadsom: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that there are grave concerns about reductions of Stagecoach bus services in the South Northamptonshire constituency. The 41 Stagecoach bus route provides access to a GP practice, the University of Northampton, a terminal station and other local conveniences; further that it is a lifeline for the elderly and those who do not own a car; and further that this reduction in service has severely curbed independence for those living in rural villages, cutting individuals off from family, friends, employment, education and medical care.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to allocate further support for rural bus routes like the 41 Stagecoach, and to safeguard against any future reductions in services that keep our communities connected.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002783]

Illegal Money Lending

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amanda Solloway.)

Paul Maynard: It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour to make concision my watchword, with my eye half on the clock, but I want to give this issue an airing. Illegal money lending is a growing and pernicious problem in constituencies such as mine, but it receives little attention and is almost surrounded by stigma. I am grateful to the Centre for Social Justice for its assistance in preparing for today’s debate, particularly Matthew Greenwood, who authored an exceptional report on the issue.
On the surface, illegal money lending sounds as though it might be a rather low technical offence—lending money as a business without approval from the Financial Conduct Authority. In practice, however, it is a frequently devastating crime that sees the exploitation of the financially vulnerable and carries with it deep financial, mental and physical costs. No two cases of illegal money lending are the same, but, in England today, the Centre for Social Justice estimates that up to 1 million people could be borrowing from an illegal money lender. Those people each experience illegal lending in their own way and for their own reasons. It is dangerous to over-generalise and I will try to avoid doing so.
Anyone can be the victim of an illegal money lender—indeed, anyone can be an illegal money lender—but known victims tend to share a number of common experiences. Just over 60% have an income below £20,000 a year and almost half live in social housing. That constitutes a large proportion of my constituency, as Blackpool has eight of the 10 most-deprived neighbourhoods in the country. Illegal money lending is a danger that stalks every street in the centre of Blackpool. It is a risk to almost every home, but those who are often the victims have limited awareness of it.
Sometimes illegal money lenders are called loan sharks, but I am not fond of that phrase, because the problem is much more insidious than the almost-cartoonish quality of “loan shark” suggests. The lender is not an unknown quantity circling menacingly outside the front door; too often, they are a friend or relation popping round for tea and sitting on the sofa. When people are struggling to afford the costs of everyday items and bills, and often unable to access credit, they turn to someone they know and consider a friend, or even a family member they trust, but they are deceived.
Simply, that lender is not a friend, but a fraud who deceives their victims with an offer of financial support that does not materialise in practice. Having advanced money to their customer illegally, the lender does not adhere to the stringent credit regulations put in place more widely to protect consumers but exploits their sense of obligation to repay for financial gain.
We have an excellent illegal money lending team in this country, who I know the Minister supports and works with closely. They can evidence annual percentage rate repayments into the thousands, as people are emotionally manipulated into a deep sense of obligation to repay a so-called mate who once ostensibly helped them out.

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Maynard: I will, of course. I was waiting for the moment.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this forward. In Northern Ireland, we have real problems with illegal money lending, and paramilitaries are usually involved. People on estates are desperate, with energy prices and everything else rising to a level that is absolutely beyond their means, and they think the only way out is via illegal money lenders. In these trying times, with the rise in the cost of living, many may be tempted to go down this route for a quick loan, so does he agree that more needs to be done—I am looking forward to the Minister’s response—to make people aware of the damage that loan sharks can cause? A £100 loan could mean an £800 repayment, and that is outrageous.

Paul Maynard: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. As ever, he speaks a lot of sense. His evidence from Northern Ireland shows why we cannot generalise about this issue—there are specific circumstances there—but I join him in looking forward to the Minister’s reply, and I am sure those points will be taken on board.
I was struck by one example in which an illegal lender took all a young girl’s money in repayments because she felt obliged to him, as he had taken the effort to go round and put drops into her pet dog’s eyes because she could not manage it herself. What an awful situation to be in. Coercion and intimidation are all too often encouragements to repay, and that should not be the case.
What about when a victim cannot pay? Illegal lenders have been known to add arbitrary late fees, causing the debt to spiral out of control, and to threaten their victims and even demand sexual favours. I know the Minister is more than familiar with the practices of illegal lenders and their economic abuse, but for the benefit of a wider audience, let me tell the House about Michelle. Michelle met her lender on the school playground. She needed money and her friend—her lender—offered to meet that need. She thought she was borrowing from a friend. When she struggled to repay, her lender made it her business to know when money went into her account so they could make her repay. The more she repaid, the more she needed to borrow, but that was not all. Michelle received threats, and she had her windows smashed. As she tried to sleep at night, she was shouted at, making her own home an unsafe place to stay. It got so bad that Michelle and her two children were put into temporary housing. Why? Because she borrowed £50.
I raise these issues not only because they are a blight on our communities, but because we are facing an increase in the cost of living. Those on the sharpest edges will be pushed further away from financial inclusion and the legal credit market into the hands of the most unscrupulous. I very much welcome the financial support that the Government have already given to support people’s incomes, but we must do all we can to prevent illegal money lenders from taking hold by supporting the illegal money lending team to do its job and provide long-term, scalable market solutions to financial exclusion.
The illegal money lending team is a specialised body equipped to identify and prosecute illegal money lenders, but its current scale is insufficient to meet rising demand. Money is scarce, but support to improve the team and its data capabilities would go a long way to improve understanding of this issue and better tackle it. I know the Minister will be aware of the consumer credit levy that raises funds for the team, but perhaps funds could be found from elsewhere in the Department, even in these straitened times. Another part of this support must surely be improving the quality of debt advice and its ability to identify clients who are borrowing from illegal lenders.
It is worth touching briefly on the Help to Save scheme, which is one of my pet favourite projects of the entire Government. It is a fantastic mechanism by which people on universal credit and some legacy benefits can save for a rainy day. To date, His Majesty’s Treasury reports that the scheme supports almost 360,000 people, but this is well below 10% of even those on universal credit. Improving access to and the uptake of this solution to financial resilience is a priority.
May I make a wider point? I have participated in numerous online sessions, meetings there, speeches—you name it—and often all I hear is how we remedy the consequences of poor financial resilience, not how we avoid it in the first place. Help to Save should be front and centre in all our debates about this, not waiting for things to go wrong when we could solve them further upstream. I urge the Minister, as he is new to the job, to make Help to Save a personal passion, because it can make so much of a difference to so many lives.
Finally, let me touch on credit unions and the consumer credit market more widely. Accessing credit should be something that everyone can do. It should not be stigmatised as wrong for certain types of people, as sadly I often hear in this place. We need to do much better through innovation at ensuring that those who most need credit can access credit that is affordable, and that successful repayments can open the door to future, cheaper forms of credit. That journey—the focus of the much lamented and unadvanced Woolard review—is crucial if consumers are to steer clear of illegal lenders.
Part of creating a healthy credit ecosystem is emphasising the role of credit unions, which are strong, community-focused organisations that offer low-cost, alternative credit. However, they are not currently up to the task of plugging the entire credit gap because of over-prescriptive legislation that is both old and in need of modernisation, as well as designed in such a way that it limits their growth, scalability, size and membership.
I know that this is an area of work that the Minister is taking an interest in, and I welcome the provisions in the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which he is shepherding through the House. The Bill will help to expand credit unions’ coverage across the credit spectrum and improve access to services, but if we are to truly scale these lending bodies, we need to reimagine what is called the common bond. By tweaking existing legislation to allow credit unions to have a maximum membership rather than a maximum potential membership, we might allow them to cover a wider geographic area, pool their talent into bigger, more professional bodies and compete with one another to offer the best services. That would  create scale, and it seems to me to be a sensible, market-oriented Conservative policy. If only we had so many more of them at the moment. Come along—it cannot be that difficult.
More widely, it is important that the consumer credit market is fit and able to serve customers across the credit spectrum. I urge the Minister to undertake work to see whether the Bill can be adjusted to accommodate those views. Reimagining the common bond, promoting strategic mergers and supporting the illegal money lending teams to clamp down on illegal lenders are small tweaks. I know that those are issues that he takes seriously. I hope—I ask this in every Adjournment debate—he will meet with me and the Centre for Social Justice to discuss how we can take this agenda forward. I thank him for his time today and for listening to me. I thank hon. Members present and hope that, as I have been concise, the staff of the House can make it in time for kick-off.

Andrew Griffith: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who has a distinguished record in advocating for this subject that is matched only by his distinguished record in speaking up for his constituents.
As my hon. Friend so persuasively explained, loan sharks—he prefers to call them illegal money lenders, so I will do so going forward—can at best use unfair, hidden fees and sky-high interest rates and, at worst, some of the much more aggressive practices that he talked about. The Government recognise many of the concerns that he outlined, and I recognise them from stories that I have heard.
Illegal money lenders prey on the most vulnerable people, which is one of the saddest things about this particular form of crime. As we heard in the case of Michelle, it causes the victims great harm and distress, as well as inflicting damage on the wider communities—sometimes, those communities already face adversity—in which they operate. It is a devastating crime.
This is not a novel issue affecting only some. Only recently, I too met the Centre for Social Justice, including Matthew Greenwood, who has produced an excellent report, to listen to the findings about the prevalence of illegal money lending in England. I want to be absolutely clear with the House that lending money without Financial Conduct Authority authorisation is a crime. We want to clamp down on this immoral and damaging practice, and that is why, as my hon. Friend mentioned, the Treasury funds the illegal money lending teams across the UK. Those teams include specialist local trading standards officers who operate nationally and work alongside the FCA in maintaining standards in the consumer credit market. They can draw on geographically dispersed community intelligence officers, who are crucial in identifying local illegal money lenders, who disproportionately operate in low-income communities, and clearly, by the nature of the crime—my hon. Friend mentioned that there is often a family and friends link—can be hard to detect.
Since the teams were established in 2004, they have prosecuted over 400 cases of illegal money lending and the associated criminality that accompanies it, and  have caused nearly £90 million of illegal debt to be written off. That is a huge number, but there is more we can do.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for the comprehensive and detailed response he is giving, which I think is what the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) is looking for. I mentioned the issue in Northern Ireland in my previous intervention. I know that the Minister may not have had an opportunity to speak to anyone in Northern Ireland, whether in policing and justice or in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but if he has, can he give any indication of what discussions he has had with those in Northern Ireland, where paramilitaries seem to be the moneylenders, about how we can take those bloodsuckers—which is what they are—out of society and off the backs of the local people?

Andrew Griffith: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I have not had that opportunity: I am a relatively new Minister, but one who has already had impressed upon him the gravity and prevalence of this situation. I will undertake to understand the situation not just in England, but in all parts of our Union, including with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Of course, if we are going to tackle this problem, it is right to tackle it in every corner of the Union and make sure there is no hiding place.
The Government have increased funding since the Treasury took over responsibility in 2017. That funding has gone up by 37%, and this year, the Government will provide around £7 million to the teams. I understand the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys for more resources to be put into this area. I will take that away, meet with the teams and those responsible, and see what more we can do, whether that is simply a question of resources and priorities or whether some legislative changes could be examined. I cannot make any promises at the Dispatch Box today, but I will do that for my hon. Friend as we seek to bear down on this issue.
Those teams also provide support to victims and education to those who are most at risk, and they tell me that they have helped over 30,000 people through that process. They undertake community work, warning people like Michelle, my hon. Friend’s constituent, of the risks of loan sharks—perhaps that term is okay in this colloquial context—or illegal moneylenders. They also support people through the provision of legal and affordable credit, which is something I am very keen to increase. As my hon. Friend impressed on me, we have to work upstream, providing safe, legal and low-cost alternatives to cut off the demand for this product at source. I want consumers to build resilience through having a savings buffer, as well as getting young children into the savings habit at a very early age, as I did. That is a great life gift to give to somebody, and we are well placed to do so through the provision of things like credit unions—safe, legal and affordable credit when people need it.

Jim Shannon: The Minister is incredibly gracious in giving way, and I am not going to hold up the debate for much longer. I just want to say that I was very fortunate to have a mother who, when I was 16, gave me my first  £10. I went down to the Northern bank, as it was then—it is now Danske bank—and that was the first stage in my savings. That instilled a habit in me, and probably in all my brothers and sisters, of saving and being able to pay our debts.

Andrew Griffith: I commend the hon. Gentleman and his mother—he probably would not be where he is today if not for that brilliant savings habit established at an early age. I had a National Savings and Investments blue book; I used to go along to the post office, put in my pound and get a little entry into that book.
I do not mean to digress—not every part of the United Kingdom has an important fixture, a date with destiny, shortly—but I share the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys about getting people into the savings habit. I will be meeting soon to understand more about the opportunity presented by community development finance institutions, which provide a local, place-based alternative source of credit to people. Also, as my hon. Friend mentioned, there is the brilliant Help to Save scheme, and it would be a delight to work with him to see how we can upscale that—I am sure that he has great insights into it. The scheme is very creditable. It does a good job, and I am delighted to learn that it has helped more than 350,000 individuals. However, as we learned on the prevalence of illegal lending, there is a great deal more to do, and I am keen to understand that scheme more. I recently met the management team of National Savings and Investments at its new offices just around the corner from here. It operates that scheme on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions, and that could provide a great opportunity.
I know that people across the United Kingdom are worried at this time about the cost of living. Some of them are seeing their disposable incomes decrease or be squeezed. We are fully alive to the fact that that may induce people to turn to illegal lenders. To help the most vulnerable, we have announced £37 billion of support for the cost of living this financial year. We have taken decisive action to support millions of households and businesses with rising energy costs this winter through the energy price guarantee and the energy bill relief scheme. I know that my hon. Friend would say that there is always more to be done, and that the Prime Minister would say that, however generous the Government wish to be, there is a limit to how much we can do. We seek to get the balance right.
In addition to the energy price guarantee, millions of the most vulnerable will receive £1,200 of support through the £400 from the energy bills support scheme, the £150 from the council tax rebate and a one-off £650 cost of living payment. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance about how seriously we take this issue and how we are putting the taxpayers’ money where our mouth is, in terms of helping the most vulnerable and trying to keep them out of the clutches of illegal money lenders. I undertake to him to continue to work hard to introduce safe, legal and affordable alternatives, as well as to be relentless in our pursuit of those who would try to exploit this opportunity.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.